in Re Wildcat Midstream Holdings II, LLC, WMH Corpus I, LLC, WMH Corpus Land Acquisition I, LLC, WMH Corpus Land Acquisition II, LLC, and WMH Corpus Land Acquisition III, LLC
13-17-00522-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- Express Midstream Services sued Wildcat Midstream and related entities in Nueces County seeking, among other remedies, recovery of title to three tracts of land (rescission/return of property) and monetary damages arising from failed development of an oil terminal.
- Relators moved to transfer venue initially to Dallas; seven days before the hearing they filed an amended motion asserting mandatory venue in San Patricio County because the disputed tracts lie there, with prima facie proof (affidavits, deed descriptions, title policy).
- The trial court held a non-evidentiary hearing, denied the amended motion, and concluded the real property was incidental and that sufficient contacts existed in Nueces County.
- Relators filed an original mandamus petition challenging the trial court’s denial of transfer under the mandatory land-venue statute (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.011).
- The appellate court examined timeliness of the amended motion, the mandatory-venue standard (essence of the dispute; prima facie proof), and whether some or all property was located in San Patricio County.
- Holding: the court concluded the action is essentially for recovery of an interest in real property, relators established prima facie that the tracts are in San Patricio County, and the trial court erred; mandamus conditionally granted to transfer venue to San Patricio County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relators timely amended their motion to transfer venue | Express: amended motion filed 7 days before hearing was untimely under Rule 87(1) and should be disregarded | Relators: amendment filed before ruling, relator may amend and replies allowed up to 7 days before hearing; amendment relates back | Amended motion was timely and superseded original motion; Express failed to move for continuance so Rule 87 objection not preserved |
| Whether the suit falls within mandatory land-venue (§ 15.011) | Express: case is a business dispute with incidental real property issues; general venue in Nueces proper | Relators: essence of suit seeks recovery/return of real property (rescission/title), so § 15.011 applies | Court: substance/ultimate purpose is recovery of property; § 15.011 applies |
| Whether part of the property is located in San Patricio County | Express: deed/PSA recites Nueces County for part of Cougar tract, so Nueces venue proper | Relators: deed language placing property in Nueces is a typographical error; affidavits and title policy show all tracts in San Patricio | Relators made prima facie proof that property lies in San Patricio; Express never specifically denied with prima facie proof; venue facts taken as true |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying transfer | Express: sufficient contacts in Nueces and real property incidental; discretionary fact disputes exist | Relators: mandatory venue controlled; trial court had no discretion to refuse transfer once mandatory venue shown | Court: trial court erred as a matter of law; mandamus conditionally granted to transfer to San Patricio County |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Transcon. Realty Inv’rs, 271 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. 2008) (mandamus available to enforce mandatory venue provisions)
- In re Applied Chem. Magnesias Corp., 206 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. 2006) (determine venue by examining essence/substance of dispute)
- In re Signorelli Co., 446 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (strict construction of mandatory land-venue statute)
- In re Pepsico, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002) (amended timely motion to transfer relates back to original motion)
- Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752 (Tex. 1993) (prima facie venue proof not subject to impeachment or disproof)