Rowland Martin, Jr. v. Edward L. Bravenec and 1216 West Ave., Inc.
04-14-00483-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 3, 2015Background
- Appellant Rowland J. Martin files a supplemental motion for panel rehearing under the Texas Citizens Participation Act and Rule 33.1 challenging the trial court’s denial of TCPA dismissal relief.
- The supplemental motion broadens the original petition to address alleged fundamental jurisdictional defects and seeks Ramsey v. Dunlop‑style fundamental-error review.
- Appellant contends the trial court failed to adjudicate issues related to standing, ownership, and time-barred tort claims tied to lis pendens, deeds, and post-petition foreclosure history.
- The record references Torralba Properties’ July 8, 2014 deed and Bravenec’s role, asserting these facts affect ownership and standing under the TCPA’s clear-and-specific-evidence standard.
- Appellant argues speech/public-issue concerns and due-process rights bear on the lis pendens filings, and that the court misapplied TCPA evidentiary rules and scope of review.
- The court indicates it will permit de novo Ramsey review of privilege/justification defenses and consider the Torralba deed as evidence supporting dismissal under the TCPA framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ramsey fundamental-error review applies to TCPA appeals | Martin contends TCPA allows fundamental-error review on rehearing. | Bravenec counters that TCPA review follows standard interlocutory-appeal procedures and preserved errors. | Fundamental-error review permitted for jurisdictional issues on rehearing. |
| Whether appellees lacked standing/ownership under clear-and-specific evidence | Ownership/standing not shown; Torralba deed creates ambiguity and allows dismissal under Alphonso-type analysis. | Appellees sufficiently alleged ownership/standing; record supports their prima facie case. | Appellees' standing/ownership evidence insufficient under clear-and-specific standard; dismissal warranted on these issues. |
| Whether privilege/justification defenses were properly considered under TCPA | Appellant has valid privilege/justification defenses that negate elements of the claim. | Court properly applied TCPA standards and treated privilege/justification as insufficient to defeat the claim. | De novo Ramsey review appropriate to evaluate privilege/justification defenses. |
| Whether Torralba deed and related deeds affect the merits of the lis pendens and related claims | Torralba deed offers crucial evidence undermining appellees' purchase-money lien claims and standing. | Torralba deed is not dispositive of ownership or the elements of the live claims. | Torralba deed evidence may be judicially noticed and considered for dismissal under TCPA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramsey v. Dunlop, 146 Tex. 196, 205 S.W.2d 979 (Tex. 1947) (fundamental-error review when record shows jurisdictional defect)
- Alphonso v. Deshotel, 417 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013) (clear-and-specific-evidence standard to raise prima facie defense)
- Schimmel v. McGregor, 438 S.W.3d 847 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (speech/public-concern under TCPA; relevant to privileged communications)
- In re King's Estate, 244 S.W.2d 660 (Tex. 1951) (standing and subject-matter jurisdiction considerations; preservation requirements)