John Freeman Junior v. Formosa Management, L.L.C., 01-15-00907-CV

Background

In 2007 Patrick Freeman sued to partition property he alleged he owned two-thirds of and John Freeman owned one-third; John answered but lost in a post-answer default hearing and a partition judgment was signed ordering sale and distribution.
A receiver was appointed in 2008 to sell John’s interest; the receiver sold the property in 2009 and it ultimately passed to Formosa Management, L.L.C.
John pursued multiple appeals and a bill of review challenging the partition and sale; prior appellate rulings held his appeal of the partition judgment untimely and affirmed the receiver order.
In 2013 John filed a trespass-to-try-title suit against Formosa claiming the partition judgment was void because Patrick lacked standing; Formosa raised res judicata and limitations and moved for summary judgment.
The trial court granted Formosa’s summary judgment relying on res judicata; John appealed, arguing the 2007 partition judgment was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2007 partition judgment is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Patrick lacked an interest in the property when he sued	John: Patrick had no interest at filing (sold earlier) so court lacked jurisdiction; judgment therefore void	Formosa/Patrick: Partition judgment presumed valid; even if Patrick lacked interest that goes to the merits (standing to recover), not jurisdiction; res judicata bars relitigation	Court: Judgment not void. John failed to prove jurisdictional defect from the record; plaintiff’s standing argument attacks the merits, not jurisdiction, so res judicata applies.
Whether extrinsic evidence may be used in a collateral attack to show voidness	John: Submitted abstract of title to show Patrick lacked interest	Patrick: Collateral-attack review presumes judgment valid; record of the original case (including hearing) is required; incomplete extrinsic evidence insufficient	Court: Collateral attacker must carry burden; record of partition proceedings was incomplete here, so recitals in judgment stand and extrinsic evidence alone insufficient to void judgment.
Whether standing to bring a partition action is a jurisdictional prerequisite	John: Standing is an element of subject-matter jurisdiction	Patrick: Standing/interest is an element of the cause of action (merits), not a jurisdictional prerequisite	Court: Standing to partition is a merits element; district court has general jurisdiction over title actions; lack of interest would make judgment erroneous but not void.
Whether res judicata and limitations barred John’s trespass-to-try-title claim	John: Res judicata/statute of limitations don't apply if original judgment is void	Formosa: Prior final partition judgment precludes relitigation; limitations applies	Court: Because the partition judgment is not void, res judicata applies; summary judgment affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012) (framework for reviewing collateral attacks and when a record shows jurisdictional defect)
Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (statutory prerequisites may be mandatory but not necessarily jurisdictional)
Reiss v. Reiss, 118 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2003) (errors other than lack of jurisdiction are voidable; trial court may have jurisdiction even if characterization is incorrect)
Amstadt v. U. S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. 1996) (elements of res judicata: prior final judgment by court of competent jurisdiction, identity of parties, and same claim)
Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1992) (policy and purpose of res judicata)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for conclusive summary-judgment proof; reasonable people must not differ)