James v. Calkins
446 S.W.3d 135
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Family dispute over mother Mary Calkins' guardianship and estate; multiple lawsuits across counties; Carolyn sought declaratory relief contesting Richard's power of attorney and deed to Mary's home; Richard and Easton filed fraud and related claims; Maria’s lis pendens was at issue in the 61st District Court case; TCPA motion to dismiss filed/overruled by operation of law and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the appeal have jurisdiction despite service issues? | Urquhart was not served; Voluntary appearance should not cure service defect. | Voluntary appearance allowed; service issue did not preclude TCPA motion. | No jurisdictional bar; voluntary appearance permits TCPA motion. |
| Are Mary Elizabeth, G. Wesley, and G. Wesley Urquhart, P.C.'s appeals moot? | Nonsuits in underlying case do not moot appeals seeking sanctions/costs. | Dismissed parties' appeals moot since relief sought was achieved. | Appeals not moot; sanctions/fees may be enforced under TCPA. |
| Does TCPA apply to all claims since the action began before the effective date? | Some claims predate TCPA; but post-date amendments/defendants joined post-TCPA should be covered. | TCPA only for actions filed after effective date; pre-date claims exempt. | TCPA applies to all claims against those joined after the effective date and to amended post-date pleadings. |
| Did movants prove the TCPA dismissal standard and entitlement to dismissal with sanctions? | Claims are based on petitioning activity; plaintiffs failed to prove prima facie case for each element. | Claims covered by petition; plaintiffs failed to prove each essential element with clear, specific evidence. | TCPA dismissal granted; plaintiffs failed to prove prima facie case for all elements; sanctions to be awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Villafani v. Trejo, 251 S.W.3d 466 (Tex. 2008) (sanctions survive a nonsuit; not moot when seeking sanctions)
- Ward v. Better Bus. Bureau of Metro. Dallas, 401 S.W.3d 440 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2013) (TCPA applicability to post-date joined defendants; broad action definition)
- Better Bus. Bureau of Metro. Hous., Inc. v. John Moore Servs., Inc., 441 S.W.3d 345 (Tex.App.-Houston 2013) (clear and specific evidence standard; prima facie elements)
- Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil Co., L.C., 348 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. 2011) (definition of proof and reliance standards in fraud contexts)
- Meeker v. Tarrant Cnty. Coll. Dist., 317 S.W.3d 754 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010) (mootness and jurisdiction considerations in appellate review)