Mendoza v. Ramirez
336 S.W.3d 321
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- RMT condemned five tracts in Civil Action No. 529; B-1, B-2, F-1, F-2, F-3, with notices served to Villarreal and Mendoza’s predecessors in 1956.
- Special Master reports in 1957 and 1963 determined ownership, listing Ramirez family interests; Mendoza claimed title via adverse possession as heir of Olegario Villarreal.
- After remand, RMT moved for summary judgment on res judicata and adverse possession grounds; Mendoza contested both.
- Trial court granted summary judgment in favor of RMT on all but B-2 right to appeal; Mendoza appeals.
- Texas appellate review affirmed, applying federal res judicata standards and rejecting Mendoza’s adverse possession theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata applies to bar Mendoza’s claims | Mendoza | RMT | Yes; res judicata barred claims as same parties/privies, final merits judgment, same nucleus of facts. |
| Mendoza failed to prove adverse possession to B-2 | Mendoza | RMT | Yes; no exclusive possession or designed enclosure; grazing and other uses insufficient. |
| Mendoza failed to prove five-year adverse possession bar | Mendoza | RMT | Yes; evidence insufficient to show peaceable, continuous exclusive possession. |
| Ten-year adverse possession bar and twenty-five-year bar | Mendoza | RMT | Yes; no applicable continuous, exclusive possession for those periods. |
| Rule 11 agreement enforcement raised but not preserved | Mendoza | RMT | Yes; issue waived for lack of request to enforce. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925 (5th Cir. 1999) (res judicata elements and same nucleus of operative facts)
- San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. McKinney, 936 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1996) (federal res judicata analysis applies to state case)
- Gibbs v. General Motors Corp., 450 S.W.2d 827 (Tex. 1970) (summary judgment standard for burden on movant)
- Wyatt v. Longoria, 33 S.W.3d 26 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000) (no-evidence summary judgment standard)
- Rhodes v. Cahill, 802 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1990) (casual fence vs. designed enclosure in adverse possession)
- Butler v. Hanson, 455 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. 1970) (substantial modification of fence as designed enclosure)
- Templeton v. Dreiss, 961 S.W.2d 645 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998) (tax payments alone insufficient for adverse possession)
- Dellana v. Walker, 866 S.W.2d 355 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993) (tax evidence not alone establishing possession)