373 S.W.3d 610
Tex. App.2012Background
- Relators seek mandamus relief directing Karnes County to transfer venue to Tarrant County due to trustee administration in Tarrant County.
- The underlying suit involves a title dispute and a mineral lease (Red Crest Lease) between Dorfmans, JP Morgan as trustee, and Orca.
- Dorfmans allege ownership interest in minerals and challenge the deed relied on by JP Morgan as void in 1944.
- JP Morgan and Mettham moved to transfer venue under Texas Property Code §115.002 to Tarrant County; the trial court denied.
- The court must decide whether §115.002 (mandatory venue) controls over §15.011 (land-related venue) and §15.016 governs which provision applies.
- The court ultimately holds that §115.002 prevails and mandamus requires transferring the case to Tarrant County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §115.002 govern venue despite §15.011? | JP Morgan asserts mandatory venue in Tarrant County. | Dorfmans/Orca argue Karnes County venue stays due to land-claims rule. | §115.002 prevails; mandatory venue applies in Tarrant County. |
| Does §115.001 apply to a proceeding by or against a trustee? | Suit is against a trust’s trustee; §115.001 applies. | The action does not concern the trust itself; §115.001 may be inapplicable. | Section 115.001 applies to proceedings by or against a trustee; venue thus governed by §115.002. |
| Is mandamus the proper vehicle to enforce the mandatory venue provision? | Mandamus available to enforce mandatory venue provisions (statutory authority). | Not explicitly argued here; standard posture would require traditional remedies. | Mandamus relief appropriate to enforce mandatory venue in this context. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 218 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2007) (mandatory venue provisions prevail when different statutes apply)
- In re Transcon. Realty Investors, Inc., 271 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. 2008) (mandamus to enforce mandatory venue provisions)
- In re Adan Volpe Props., 306 S.W.3d 369 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2010) (separate mandatory venue provisions govern where applicable)
- In re Dole Food Co., 256 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008) (hierarchy of venue statutes when multiple provisions exist)
- In re Stark, 126 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003) (trust-related proceedings and §115.001 interpretation)