in the Guardianship of Ruby Peterson
01-15-00567-CV
Tex. App.Dec 14, 2015Background
- This is an appeal from a Texas statutory probate court guardianship proceeding involving Ruby Peterson and a civil suit against Silverado for damages related to Memory Care placement.
- Appellants filed multiple amended petitions (Fourth and Fifth Amended Petitions) naming Silverado and others, with Silverado moving under Rule 91a to dismiss and later under a First Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction.
- The trial court granted Silverado’s Rule 91a motions to dismiss and awarded Silverado attorney’s fees, and later granted a summary judgment disposing of all remaining claims against Silverado.
- Appellants filed two related notices of appeal challenging several orders; questions of finality and appellate timeliness arose due to multiple orders and transfers between probate and district courts.
- Ruby died around January 11, 2015; mediation involved a 1993 Power of Attorney, which the mediation agreement ratified, impacting standing and claims.
- The appellate briefing focused on whether the Rule 91a dismissals and pleas to the jurisdiction were proper, and whether a remand for declaratory relief or other relief was appropriate given the May 12, 2015 summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 91a dismissal was proper | Petition cures inadequacies; Rule 91a should not dismiss all claims | Rule 91a was properly applied to dismiss claims lacking legal/factual basis | Rule 91a motions properly granted |
| Award of Rule 91a attorney’s fees | Fees improperly awarded due to pleading defects | Fees awarded as prevailing party under Rule 91a.7 | Attorney’s fees upheld |
| Plea to the Jurisdiction | Fifth Amended Petition precluded, preserving jurisdiction | Plea to the jurisdiction correct; standing and mediation impact | Plea to jurisdiction proper; standing resolved in favor of Silverado |
| May 12, 2015 summary judgment effect | Remand for declaratory relief should be allowed | Summary judgment disposed of all remaining claims; remand improper | Summary judgment precludes remand for declaratory relief |
| Appellate jurisdiction and finality | Appeal timely and properly perfected | Jurisdiction limited; some parties not properly appealed | Court lacking jurisdiction over some parties; merits resolution sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (finality analysis for post-judgment orders in Lehmann framework)
- Dailey v. Thorpe, 445 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (Rule 91a dismissal standards and appeal implications)
- Guzder v. Haynes & Boone, L.L.P., 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 5389 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (Rule 91a framework and appellate review)
- Guillory v. Seaton, L.L.C., 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 13865 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (Rule 91a application and fee issues in appellate context)
- City of Dallas v. Heard, 252 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (standards for appellate review and finality)
- Crowson v. Wakeham, 897 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. 1995) (finality and multiple judgments in probate contexts)
- Weizhong Zheng v. Vacation Network, Inc., 468 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (Rule 91a and appellate remedies guidance)
- Rainbow Group, Ltd. v. Wagoner, 219 S.W.3d 485 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007) (timeliness and preservation of appellate issues)
- Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (plea to the jurisdiction standards and liberal pleading construction)
- Unifund CCR Partners v. Watson, 337 S.W.3d 922 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (jurisdictional proof standards on appeal)