Yadira Adame v. State Farm Lloyds
13-15-00357-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 9, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Yadira Adame sued State Farm Lloyds in Jim Wells County for a property insurance dispute; the insurer later moved to transfer venue to Live Oak County.
- State Farm filed its motion to transfer venue more than two months after filing its original answer and plea in abatement.
- Adame argued State Farm waived venue objections by failing to file a motion to transfer before or concurrently with its answer (the due‑order‑of‑pleading rule).
- The trial court granted State Farm’s untimely motion and the case proceeded and concluded in Live Oak County; Adame appealed the venue transfer.
- Adame later amended venue allegations after transfer to adapt to the change; she contends those amendments do not cure the defect or waive her right to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State Farm waived venue by failing to file a timely motion to transfer | Adame: State Farm waived venue under the due‑order rule (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §15.063; Tex. R. Civ. P. 86) so venue in Jim Wells was fixed | State Farm: Transfer was proper; later facts and alleged reliance on Adame’s venue allegations justify transfer and make any error harmless | Court treats grant of untimely transfer as per se reversible error subject to de novo review (reversing transfer is required when plaintiff’s original venue was proper) |
| Whether a trial court may grant an untimely transfer based on alleged reliance on plaintiff’s misstated venue facts or anticipated amendments | Adame: Reliance or speculation about future amendments does not excuse failure to follow due‑order rule; State Farm had or could easily obtain property information earlier | State Farm: It relied on plaintiff’s initial venue allegations and later learned facts making transfer appropriate; any error is harmless because plaintiff later amended venue | Court rejects reliance/speculation excuse; equitable estoppel or reliance not recognized to waive the due‑order rule; transfer was improper |
| Whether plaintiff’s post‑transfer amendments or litigation conduct forfeits right to challenge the improper transfer on appeal | Adame: Post‑transfer amendments were attempts to adapt and do not cure reversible venue error; plaintiff cannot consent to an improper venue | State Farm: Post‑transfer amendments render any transfer harmless and preclude reversal | Court holds post‑transfer amendments do not cure or waive the right to challenge a per se reversible venue transfer |
| Whether the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion or de novo for an untimely venue transfer | Adame: De novo review required because failure to follow the due‑order rule fixes venue and renders transfer per se reversible | State Farm: Trial court acted within its discretion; an abuse‑of‑discretion standard should apply | Court applies de novo review to determine whether venue was proper where due‑order rule was not followed; untimely transfer treated as per se reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep’t, 886 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. 1994) (plaintiff chooses venue; untimely challenge waives venue and improper transfers are per se reversible)
- GTE Communications Sys. Corp. v. Tanner, 856 S.W.2d 725 (Tex. 1993) (standards for sanctions and good‑faith pleadings)
- Barfield v. Howard M. Smith Co. of Amarillo, 426 S.W.2d 834 (Tex. 1968) (equitable estoppel requires due diligence; cannot rely where facts were readily ascertainable)
- McIntosh v. McIntosh, 894 S.W.2d 60 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995) (post‑transfer amendments do not legitimize an originally improper venue transfer)
- Shamoun & Norman, LLP v. Yarto Int’l Grp., LP, 398 S.W.3d 272 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2012) (parties cannot consent to venue in an improper county)
- Fleming v. Ahumada, 193 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006) (post‑transfer conduct cannot cure improper venue)
- Bristol v. Placid Oil Co., 74 S.W.3d 156 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002) (distinguished — involved different procedural posture regarding amendments and delays)