Rowland Martin, Jr. v. Edward L. Bravenec and 1216 West Ave., Inc.
04-14-00483-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 23, 2015Background
- Appellant Rowland J. Martin (pro se) filed lis pendens and related notices asserting third‑party purchase‑money lien and related claims tied to prior attorney‑client transactions; appellee Edward Bravenec (and his firm) sued alleging tortious interference and fraud and sought injunctive relief including a broad gag order.
- Martin filed a Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) motion to dismiss; the trial court denied the TCPA motion and entered temporary injunctive (gag) relief; Martin appealed interlocutorily.
- Appellant argues the claims are "based on, relate to, or are in response to" his exercise of free speech/right to petition (lis pendens and pre‑litigation notices), so TCPA dismissal was required.
- Appellees contend Martin’s TCPA motion was defective/insufficient and that prior federal/probate rulings and chain‑of‑title facts (including an alleged 2003 foreclosure) defeat Martin’s defenses (res judicata / collateral estoppel / estoppel by deed).
- Martin emphasizes appellees waived any responsive TCPA pleading in the trial court, failed to present clear and specific evidence of each element of their tort claims, and failed to rebut collateral‑estoppel and deed‑estoppel defenses; Martin urges de novo review of TCPA coverage and the clear‑and‑specific standard for the prima facie case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bravenec) | Defendant's Argument (Martin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TCPA covers Martin's lis pendens and related communications | TCPA inapplicable because Martin's TCPA motion was defective and his pleadings do not support invoking TCPA protections | Lis pendens and notices are communications in or pertaining to judicial proceedings and matters of public concern; TCPA applies and appellees must rebut with clear and specific evidence | Court of appeals reviews TCPA first prong de novo; where movant shows covered communication, plaintiff must produce clear and specific evidence of each claim element (appellant argues appellees failed this) |
| Whether appellees met burden to show clear and specific evidence of each prima facie element of tortious interference/fraud | Appellees rely on chain‑of‑title and res judicata/collateral‑estoppel theories to support interference/fraud claims | Appellees waived responsive pleadings and failed to introduce probative evidence; their case relies on inferences and unproven title/foreclosure assertions | Under TCPA, plaintiff must establish each element by clear and specific evidence unaided by inference; appellees’ briefs and record gaps (per Martin) do not meet that standard |
| Whether collateral estoppel / res judicata / estoppel by deed bar Martin’s defenses | Appellees assert prior judgments and federal orders preclude Martin’s claims and justify their suit to enjoin lis pendens speech | Martin contends prior rulings are inconclusive as to purchase‑money lien, collateral estoppel was misapplied by appellees, and federal/probate orders do not negate his lien or defenses | Application of collateral estoppel depends on identity of issues and finality; Martin argues record does not show prior determinations of the same issues and appellees failed to identify such rulings |
| Whether the temporary injunction (gag order) is allowable given TCPA automatic‑stay/First Amendment concerns | Appellees defend the injunction as necessary to protect title/contract rights | Martin asserts the injunction is an impermissible prior restraint issued after TCPA stay conditions and absent meritorious underlying claims | Injunctive prior restraints raise heavy constitutional scrutiny; Martin argues TCPA dismissal would moot the injunction (and automatic stay principles apply) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehak Creative Servs., Inc. v. Witt, 404 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (describing TCPA burden‑shifting and clear‑and‑specific‑evidence standard)
- Newspaper Holdings, Inc. v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, Ltd., 416 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (applying TCPA to dismiss tortious‑interference claim lacking probative evidence)
- Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing substantive immunity and Anti‑SLAPP policy)
- Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1965) (historical discussion of prior restraints and necessity of particularity when speech is restrained)
- Gulf Coast Inv. Corp. v. Brown, 821 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. 1991) (equitable tolling of malpractice limitations while underlying appeals remain pending)
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (U.S. 1979) (offensive vs defensive collateral estoppel principles)