Wilmer Forrest Trimble, Jr., A/K/A Wilmer Forrest Tremble, Jr., Sharon Trimble Donaldson, Selia Trimble Shawkey, and Billie J. Murphy Tremble v. Luminant Mining Company LLC
06-15-00004-CV
| Tex. Crim. App. | Nov 13, 2015Background
- Luminant Mining Co. LLC sued for partition by sale of a 25.326-acre tract in Rusk County; partition practice involves two sequential final judgments (first: determine interests; second: confirm sale).
- Luminant owned ~84% of the undivided interests before suit; the Tremble family claimed the remaining ~1.56% (derived from the interest formerly owned by Wilmer F. Tremble, Sr.).
- The Tremble family filed a summary-judgment response challenging a 2010 deed (Emma Jean Tremble Smith → Luminant) and producing a will showing Mr. Tremble, Sr. left his property to his wife.
- The court granted first-phase summary judgment (Oct. 8, 2014): found the Tremble descendants held no interest (wife held full interest), ordered sale, and appointed a receiver; no appeal was taken from that judgment.
- Receiver conducted a public sale; Luminant was the high bidder above an uncontested appraisal. The court confirmed the sale (Dec. 16, 2014). The Tremble family then appealed the second-phase judgment, naming additional entities (estate, Energy Future) not parties below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Tremble descendants to appeal second-phase judgment | Descendants could appeal the sale confirmation | First-phase judgment determined they owned no interest; they lack standing to appeal second-phase judgment | Descendants lack standing; first-phase unappealed judgment is conclusive |
| Preservation and merits of Billie Tremble's complaints about sale and procedures | Mrs. Tremble asserts procedural defects, fraud re deed, denial under Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, and lack of hearing | Complaints largely attack first-phase issues (final and unappealed), and she failed to preserve objections to the second-phase proceedings | Majority of complaints barred by final first-phase judgment or waived for lack of preservation; sale confirmation was proper |
| Applicability of Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act | Mrs. Tremble invokes rights under the Uniform Act | Texas has not enacted the Uniform Act; it is not binding Texas law | Claim under Uniform Act not cognizable in Texas courts |
| Proper parties on appeal (Estate and Energy Future) | Tremble appellants named Estate and Energy Future as parties | Estate and Energy Future were not parties in district court; cannot be added on appeal | Estate and Energy Future are not proper parties on appeal; appeals as to them should be dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Wolfe, 610 S.W.2d 466 (Tex. 1980) (describing two-phase final-judgment structure in partition suits)
- White v. Mitchell, 60 Tex. 164 (Tex. 1883) (unappealed interlocutory determinations are conclusive in subsequent proceedings)
- Marmion v. Wells, 246 S.W.2d 704 (Tex. Civ. App. — San Antonio 1952) (issues decided in first partition decree cannot be reviewed on appeal from second decree)
- Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2000) (an appellant cannot complain of errors that do not injuriously affect it)