San Jacinto Title Services of Corpus Christi, LLC San Jacinto Title Services of Texas, LLC And Mark Scott v. Kingsley Properties, Lp
452 S.W.3d 343
Tex. App.2013Background
- Appellants San Jacinto Title Services of Texas, San Jacinto Title Services of Corpus Christi, and Mark Scott sought to dismiss under the TCPA in a Kingsley Properties, LP suit arising from the Hobbs Letter and negotiations affecting development of a Corpus Christi golf course/property.
- Kingsley sued for business disparagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference (and San Jacinto for breach of contract).
- Scott allegedly acted within the course and scope of his San Jacinto employment in sending the Hobbs Letter and using campaign stationery.
- Kingsley’s claims centered on the Hobbs Letter’s impact on negotiations with buyer Philip Hurst, which purportedly reduced Kingsley’s ability to sell the property.
- Trial court denied the TCPA motion to dismiss; appellants appealed interlocutorily, raising TCPA applicability and timing issues; court addressed jurisdiction and retroactivity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interlocutory appeal jurisdiction under TCPA 27.008 | Kingsley argued no interlocutory appeal under 27.008 for a written-order denial | San Jacinto contends jurisdiction exists under 27.008 despite written denial | Interlocutory appeal permitted under 27.008 when denial is by written order |
| Whether TCPA applies to Kingsley’s suit filed before its effective date | San Jacinto asserted TCPA applies from the First Amended Petition date | Kingsley argued TCPA applies prospectively to post-effective actions only | TCPA does not apply to suit filed before its effective date; applies prospectively to post-effective actions |
| Whether TCPA applies to SJTs’ litigation posture given merger and timing | SJTs argue no applicability since entity was precluded; SJCC merger created timing issues | Kingsley argues action existed against SJT pre-merger and TCPA inapplicable for that reason | TCPA inapplicable because Kingsley’s action was filed before the TCPA’s effective date and SJTs’ merger did not render the action outside TCPA scope |
Key Cases Cited
- CMH Homes, Inc. v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2011) (interlocutory appeals under TCPA and timing considerations)
- N.Y. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. 1990) (jurisdictional limits on interlocutory appeals; fundamental error otherwise)
- Fresh Coat, Inc. v. K-2, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. 2010) (avoid surplusage; interpret statutes to give effect to all provisions)
- Jennings v. Wallbuilder Presentations, Inc., 378 S.W.3d 519 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012) (interlocutory TCPA appeal considerations; conflicting court results)
- Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp. v. Sherry, 159 S.W.3d 627 (Tex. 2005) (prospective application of new statutes; similar language on retroactivity)