Inwood Forest Community Improvement Ass'n v. Arce, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 11891

Background

Inwood Forest Community Improvement Association (Association) sued to invalidate a homeowners’ petition to modify deed restrictions for Section 12 of a subdivision, claiming the petition created a cloud on title.
Several Section 12 homeowners (Homeowners), including Arce, moved to dismiss the Association’s declaratory-judgment action under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), asserting the suit related to their rights to petition and free speech.
On September 15, 2014, the trial judge orally stated she was “going to grant the motions to dismiss,” said the rulings would not be final for 30 days, and refused to sign written orders then, instructing parties to work on community consensus during the 30-day period.
The Association filed an interlocutory appeal the same day a filing indicated additional homeowner signatures were obtained; the trial court later (after 30 days) signed written dismissal orders and fee awards for most Homeowners.
The Association argued the oral pronouncement was ineffective under the TCPA’s mandatory 30-day rule for ruling on motions to dismiss; if the court did not rule within 30 days, the motions are deemed denied by operation of law.
The court concluded the judge’s oral statements were not a present rendition of judgment, so the motions were denied by operation of law and the untimely written orders were ineffective; the Association’s appeal was dismissed per its request.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s oral statements at the hearing constituted a ruling under TCPA §27.005(a)	Association: oral statements were ineffective; a signed ruling was required within 30 days, otherwise motions denied by operation of law	Homeowners: the judge orally granted the motions at the hearing, so there was an effective ruling	Held: Oral statements reflected intent to rule in future, not a present rendition; no timely ruling → motions denied by operation of law
Whether the trial court could sign dismissal orders after the 30‑day deadline	Association: post‑deadline written orders are invalid because the motions were overruled by operation of law	Homeowners: (implicit) the later signed orders effectuate the earlier oral grant	Held: Court erred in signing orders after deadline; those orders were of no effect
Whether appellate jurisdiction exists over an interlocutory grant of a TCPA motion to dismiss	Association: questions whether this Court has jurisdiction; asks to dismiss appeal if motions were overruled by operation of law	Homeowners: argued oral ruling was effective (thus no interlocutory appeal jurisdiction)	Held: Because no timely ruling, motions were denied by operation of law and Association moved to dismiss its appeal; the Court granted dismissal of the appeal
Whether the court must always issue a written ruling when a statutory time limit governs	Association: cites Walker and argues written order required when time limits govern	Homeowners: argued oral ruling was sufficient	Held: Court did not decide the broader question whether TCPA requires written rulings in all cases; ruled here that the specific oral remarks were not a present rendition and thus ineffective

Key Cases Cited

Direct Commercial Funding, Inc. v. Beacon Hill Estates LLC, 407 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (TCPA 30‑day deadline is mandatory; no extensions)
Avila v. Larrea, 394 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (same; trial court’s options are to dismiss or not dismiss under TCPA)
Walker v. Harrison, 597 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1980) (when court’s jurisdiction to act is time‑limited, orders must be specific and signed)
State v. Naylor, 466 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. 2015) (judgment is rendered when officially announced in open court; written entry is ministerial)
Comet Aluminum Co. v. Dibrell, 450 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. 1970) (definition of rendition of judgment)