*1 Valley and J R Ramiro GARZA & Services, Inc.,
Oilfield
Petitioners, GARCIA, Respondent.
Ines Gonzalez
No. 02-0300.
Supreme Court Texas.
Argued Jan. May
Decided Stroh, E.
Jacqueline Calla- M. Sharon P.C., Callaway, Henry B. way, Crofts & Mendoza, Gonzalez, E. Davis Ced- Ronald Mandoza, Antonio, petition- illo San <& ers. Flores, Office of Joe Law
Joe Richard P.C., Flores, Edinburg, Richard Richard Mata, Secord, Yanta, Yanta Virgil W. V. Antonio, respondent. San *2 37 opinion requisite Justice BRISTER tends timetables if appellate delivered Court, HECHT, of the in which Justice filing paid. timely Garcia filed fee is never OWEN, O’NEILL, Justice Justice Justice trial,4 paid motion for new but never joined. SCHNEIDER and Justice SMITH appeal eighty- fee.5 her notice of She filed The Legislature amended if days judgment timely four her after — statutes in a trial court to 1995 allow deadlines, but too late extended “[f]or the convenience of argue if it did The defendants not.6 and witnesses the intеr- and to extend fee-less motion ineffective time, justice.”1 est of At the same deadlines, appellate making notice Garcia’s Legislature mandated that a trial court’s untimely, depriving the court appeal granting denying such transfer jurisdiction appeal.7 her over for convenience is “not for appeal disagree. We and is mandamus not reversible er- 2 ror.” A “conditionally motion for new trial is case, In this a defendant filed a motion fee, requisite filed” if tendered without the asserting improper both incon- and appellate deadlines run from and are venience, trial court extended that date: specifying without the grounds. General- ly, we must affirm such orders for [A] motion new trial tendered any ground in the accompanying motion is necessary fee is filing none- meritorious.3 Because the motion here as- conditionally when it theless filed serted convenience as ground, one and the clerk, presented date precludes any ruling reversal of purposes appellate controls for made on grounds, we hold the pay [T]he timetable.... failure considering erred in fee before the motion is overruled reversing court’s venue order. operation altogether lawof forfeit opportunity the movant’s to have the motion; court consider does matter, initial
As an
we must de
not, however,
cide
whether motion for new trial
retroactively
ex-
invalidate
18, 1995,
R.S.,
1.
May
Leg.,
signed
Act
judgment
74th
4. The
ch.
on Au-
138, 1,
10,
978,
(cur-
gust
§
Because the due date fell on a
1995
Gen. Laws
979
Saturday,
following
her motion was due the
rently
codified Tex.
Civ. Prac. Rem.Code
Monday. Tex.R.App. P.
15.002(b)).
51.317(b)(2)
(requiring
5. Tex. Gov’t Code
(currently
codified at Tex. Civ. Prac. &
filing
$15
district
to collect
fee for mo-
clerk
15.002(c)).
Rem.Code
trial).
tion for new
Francis,
237,
3. Dow
Co. v.
Chem.
46 S.W.3d
26.1(a)(1)
Tex.R.App.
(providing
P.
notice of
(Tex.2001) (motion
summary judg-
242
for
thirty days
filed
must be
within
ment);
Corp. Honeycutt,
K-Mart
v.
24 S.W.3d
judgment,
ninety days
party timely
357,
(Tex.2000) (motion
to exclude ex-
trial).
files a
new
motion for
pert);
(Nigeria)
IKB
v.
Indus.
Ltd.
Pro-Line
(find-
(Tex.1997)
Corp., 938 S.W.2d
Domer,
Verburgt
7. See
v.
law);
ings of fact
see
and conclusions of
also
(Tex.1997) ("[Ojnce
granting
period
Novak,
M.D.
Anderson Cancer Ctr.
motion for extension of time under Rule
(Tex.2001) (plea
juris-
41(a)(2)
longer
passed,
party
has
can
diction)
jurisdiction.”).
.-
invoke the
court’s
II
filing
purposes
conditional
timetable.8
petitioner
record reflects
*3
previously re
Although we have
(a
of
Ines Gonzalez Garcia
resident Hidal-
never
ruling
served
on
fee
was
against
suit
J & R
go County) brought
to this
paid,9 we
extend the same rule
now
(a
Services,
Valley
Inc.
business
Oilfield
con
for the same reasons.
situation
We
(a
Hidalgo County)
resi
and Ramiro Garza
of
Procedure
Appellate
strue
Rules
County)
Hidalgo
of either
Starr
dent
so
turn
sub
liberally,
that decisions
on
concerning
occurring
an auto accident
procedural
stance rather
than
technicali
County.
lay
Hidalgo
рotential
Of sixteen
10
a fee
ty;
requires
in those rules
nothing
by
designated
expert
witnesses
trial,
accompany a motion for new
Hidalgo
of
fourteen were residents
parties,
Moreover,
paid
at all.
that such
fee be
County, and two Mexico. None resided
conditionally
once a motion for new trial is
Nevertheless,
County.
suit was
Starr
extended,
litigants
and timetables
all
filed
County,
on
brought
in Starr
based
evi
ap
knowing
timetables
benefit
what
dence that Garza lived there.
ply
they do not know whether
even
R’s
to transfer venue
paid. The
J motion
requisite fee was
alternative
(which
joined) argued that
uncertainty, as the deadlines
Garza
Starr
would breed
venue,
automatically
County
not
jump
forward when
was
might
your
quietly paid
“[ajlternatively,
or revert backwards
Defendant
the fee
and added
is not.
trans-
it
would show
venue should be
Hidalgo County
ferred to
for
conven-
filing
say
This is not
fees
parties.”
The trial court’s
ience
have held that “absent
irrelevant. We
that,
considering
order stated
“after
or other rare circumstances”
emergency
motion,
affidavits,
pleadings,
for
consid
motion
new
should
be
arguments of
responses as well as
counsel
Here,
filing
paid.11
until
ered
fee
hearing,
grants
the Court
De-
and after a
had
sufficiency complaint
Garcia’s factual
to Transfer Venue.”
fendants’ Motion
trial,12but
raised in a motion for new
fee,
paid the
because she never
$15
Hidalgo County,
jury
At the triаl
it.
required
to review
trial court was
Unsatisfied,
$120,000.
she
awarded Garcia
complaint
properly
was
made
As her
never
seeking
and a
appealed
automatic reversal
court,
preserved nothing
to the trial
the venue transfer.14
new trial based on
review;13 thus,
cor
the court
reversed, refusing
of appeals
never
her factual suffi
rectly
addressed
order
on
correctly
was
ciency complaint, but
considered
spe-
grounds unless the
her
complaint.
Co.,
Transp.
Dep't
v.
934
10. Motor VehicleBd.
v.
de Nemours &
Tate E.I. DuPont
Ass'n, Inc.,
curiam)
(Tex.1996)
Indep.
1
(per
El
Auto. Dealers
Paso
83-84
S.W.2d
(Tex.1999)
curiam).
(per
S.W.3d
original) (holding
ex-
(emphasis
deadlines
paid after
was overruled
tended
fee
motion
Jamar,
868 S.W.2d at
n. 3.
jurisdiction expired, and
plenary
but before
Patterson, quoting
Jamar
324(b)(2); Tex.R.App. P.
Civ.
12. Tex.R.
P.
curiam)
(Tex.1993) (per
S.W.2d
(holding
paid be-
fee
deadlines extended
overruled)).
fore
P.33.1(a), (b).
App.
13. Tex. R.
15.064(b).
Tate,
Prac. & Rem.Code
14. Tex. Civ.
at 84 n. 1.
cifically
reversing
by adding “granted
said so.15 In
addition
applicable
traditional
grounds.”
orders,
other
all
this rule would sometimes
potential
Nor
do we believe
error
just
Legislature prohibited.
do
what the
injustice
justifies making
excep-
here
here
Because
transfer order
includes
tion to
rule that trial
reasons,
we cannot be certain on which
lawyers
specific
not detail
find-
need
granted;
the two
one
ings
every
order.18 When a defendant
conveniencе,
ground was
and the evidence
*4
files a
on both
motion based
showed most of the witnesses and all of
ground,
and another
a trial judge
events took place Hidalgo County.
the
may grant
on
the motion
the former
County judge certainly
the Starr
might
As
ground and
cannot review it.
the
we
Or
intended
it on
grant
have
to
both,
judge may
in which
deny
case we
grounds,
ignore
Legisla-
we cannot
the
may
only
review
latter. The court of
the
ture’s ban on
such
reviewing
orders
judge
a trial
might
concerned
adopting a
presumption
new
so we can
deny
intend to
a motion based on conven-
anyway.
review them
(erroneously)
ience
granting
while
the mo-
The court of
to
imply
refused
ground.
tion on an alternative
But most
finding
grounds
on convenience
because
provisions
are based on notions of
statutory prohibition
the
on appellate re-
convenience. As the
where the
precluded reviewing
view
the record for
parties reside or the events occurred will
might
evidence that
support such an im-
convenient,
often be the most
decline
plied finding.16
precludes
But
the
change
presumption
pre-
our usual
rules to
just
evidence,
review
but of the
sume
opposite.
the
result,
order itself. As
it
is irrelevant
whether a
sup-
transfer for convenience is
dissenting colleagues
Our
conclude
ported by any
Hypothet-
record evidence.
possibly
could not
have
ically, a trial judge could stаte there was
this
grounds,
transfer on convenience
but
no evidence for a convenience
but
looking beyond
do so
after
nonetheless,
it
(except
per-
supporting
order to the
evidence and
haps reporting it to
Judicial
Conduct
—
attorneys’ arguments
exactly
Commission)
very
there is
little we could
appellate
kind of
pre-
review the statute
do about it.
They
cludes.
to Hidalgo
would remand
acknowledge
court of appeals’
We
County, where the case could be trans-
concern
the usual
presumption
fa-
again (using
magic
ferred
words “for
of nonspecific
vor
will
many
orders
make
time),
again
convenience” this
tried
venue orders
“immune
review.”17
County,
аppealed again.
Starr
This
inBut
transfer orders based on conven-
exactly the
piecemeal
kind of
review and
ience, that appears
precisely
been
relitigation
our usual
is in-
And
intent.
even under
tended to avoid.
bright-line test,
court of appeals’
colleagues
dissenting
argue
who are
Our
our
judges
so inclined
make
simply
Legisla-
venue order immune from review
presumes
strict construction
367.
17.
vits Ill county, in the forum defendant resides the court of should principal has its Because defendant business or- trial court’s transfer there, have affirmed the and a substantial office grounds, we reverse a mov- der on convenience did not occur there.22 While events original jurisdictiоn, under "have 19. S.W.3d 36. may be regulations restrictions such law”); see prescribed by Collins Ison-New at 42. ("Our some, (Tex.2001) jurisdictional analysis begins with the basic Id. at jurisdiction in do principle that we not have express constitutional the absence of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code 22. See Phillips, grant.”) (citing legislative Chenault v. 86(3), 87(3)(a). 15.002(a); Civ. P. Tex.R. (Tex.1996)). Const, V, 3(a) (providing juris 23. Tex. art. 32 on the Floor of 24.Debate on S.B. Supreme extend to all Court “shall diction (testi- House, 1995) Leg., (May 74th R.S. except and as criminal law matters cases Duncan) Rep. (transcript mony available provided this Constitution otherwise Library). law”); 6(a) Law the Texas State (providing courts id. R then asserted County. J & Because in Starr judgment. appeals’ the court of Hidalgo County remaining hеr maintainable preserve failed to “[v]enue Garcia to ever sufficiency point (by failing giving rise to factual all of the events ... because fee), judgment filing we render pay Hidalgo County, the claim occurred judgment. reinstating the trial court’s Texas, County is the Hidalgo [and] the end of At residence....” R’s] of [J PHILLIPS filed Chief Justice motion, single this sen- J & R added in which Justice dissenting opinion, “Alternatively ... should be tence: I and joined as to Parts WAINWRIGHT con- County for the Hidalgo transferred II. parties.” venience of the filed a Justice WAINWRIGHT motion to reply In to J & R’s dissenting opinion. al- venue, Garcia plaintiff Ines Gonzalez Justice JEFFERSON did why Garza was leged several reasons participate in the decision. County, where Garcia rеsident of Starr First, pointed he brought suit. PHILLIPS, joined by Chief Justice trooper fol- prepared by the state report I and as to Parts Justice WAINWRIGHT that was the basis of lowing the accident II, dissenting. suit, address as which listed Garza’s today holds that when a mo- The Court Second, owned a City. Rio Garza Grande *6 grounds tion to transfer venue on several City, where his wife in Rio Grande home in phrase alleging includes a a sentence resided, paid Garza and children that such transfer will be for the conven- occurred. year for the the accident taxes trial court parties, ience of the and the City Finally, gave the Rio Grande Garza grants the motion without indication magistrate appeared when he address to а transfer that it considered even knew Driving in on an unrelated While court grounds alleged, on convenience support In of these charge. Intoxicated by any transfer is immune from review claims, deposition attached Garza’s Garcia Although court. this result can a court document from Garza’s DWI reading of the and supported literal statute, I form arraignment. venue believe exalts over pur- the essential substance undermine hearings conducted two The trial court pose of the venue scheme. testi- presented live parties at which both Therefore, I respectfully dissent. however, introduced mony. party, Neither on, or even referenced any argument The parties.” “сonvenience of the term Valley R Defendant J & Oilfield Ser- motion, stating J & R’s vices, Inc., joined by Ramiro defendant considering the mo- in its order: “[A]fter Garza, in filed a motion to transfer venue affidavits, tion, the re- pleadings, personal injury suit from Starr of counsel arguments sponses as well objected to Hidalgo County. The motion De- hearing, grants and after a Court County in ... on the “venue Starr The to Transfer Venue.” fendant’s Motion county proper county not a and that said granting for gave no reasons mandating permitting no basis exists men- particular and in never R is County],” because J & venue [Starr par- term “convenience tioned the County” and “does “not a resident Starr any agent office” or ties.” principal not have [its] County tо transfer case to Hidalgo Hidalgo
This case was then tried County. jury The returned a verdict County for a new trial. Id. at 372. Starr $120,000 Garcia, awarding her for favor
past physical pain and future mental II anguish care, past and for medical but principal Texas is The venue nothing past physical for im- future 15.002 the Texas Civil Practice pairment disfigurement. The 15.002(a) in- and Remedies Code. Section judgment on De- rendered the verdict. determining four cludes subsections judgment, spite generally favorable county properly brought. what a suit is the trial appealed, arguing Garcia § Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem.Code case from transferring court erred from an appeal There is immediate County Hidalgo County. Starr if on venue is ruling, adverse reversed, holding The court of improper, “it to have been determined supported that the evidence Starr shall in no event be harmless error County, brought suit. 70 where Garcia 15.064(b). error.” Id. shall be reversible argued R and 362. J & Garza rul- Thus, price improper the court could not reverse the transfer ing always a new trial. 15.002(c) prohibits appel- because section however, Legislature, gives the trial The of transfers for convenience. late review court discretion decide whether Prac. See Tex. Civ. & Rem.Code 15.002(c). to another case court of refused in the inter- that the transfer was based on 15.002(b). parties, justice. dis- noting est of This broad, unfettered, such a would insulate most be- cretion is but not determinations from review. can when three cause it be exercised *7 excep- at 367-68. Because venue 15.002(b) S.W.3d met. As conditions are Section mandatory provisions and venue tions states: construed, strictly
always been
and be-
parties
of the
and
For the convenience
except
all
for
cause
venue determinations
justice,
a
in the interest
witnesses and
subject
the
for
to
transfer
convenience
a
may
an action from
transfer
review,
held:
the court of
under
sub-
county
proper
venue
this
parameters
order to fall within the
[I]n
any
Subchapter
other
chapter or
C
(c),
is,
that
in order to be
of subsection
motion of a
venue on
review, a
еxempt
appellate
from
concurrently
and served
defendant filed
expressly
must
state that
the
answer,
the
filing
or
the
with
before
the
cause is or is not transferred for
the court finds:
where
parties
under section
(1)
in the
of the action
maintenance
15.002(b),
must
or the record
contain
injustice
an
county of suit would work
findings of fact in accordance
express
considering
mov-
movant
section'Í5.002(b).
with
hardship;
personal
and
ant’s economic
reviewed the
Id. at 368. The court then
(2)
of interests
all
balance
provision
general
under the
transfer
in favor of the
predominates
parties
held
the trial court erred
that
brought
in the other
being
action
It
therefore re-
granting
transfer.
county;
for
manded
case
(3)
transfers,
applying
of the action would
rule here
transfer
review,
injustice
not work an
other
does not facilitate
it abro-
party.
gates
for the presumption
it. The reason
head,
ought
is
stood on its
to make
question
Legislature
us
whether the
meant
In contrast to the automatic reversal for
Instead,
for it
apply.
believe the
determination,
an erroneous venue
howev-
accepted
statutory construction
rules of
er, a trial court’s transfer under section
suggest that
did not.
Legislature
15.002(b) will not
be reversed
is
fact,
In
wrong.
at all
reviewable
duty
interpret
Our
a
first
is to
extraordinary
or
an
pleading.
a way
that
out the
carries
15.002(c)
Section
commands: “A court’s
312.005;
intent. Tex. Gov’t Code
State
ruling
deny
or
decision to
a trans-
Gonzalez,
(Tex.2002);
v.
(b)
grounds
fer under Subsection
is not
for
Clark,
Corp.
Am. Home
Prods.
appeal mandamus and is not reversible
(Tex.2000).
interpret-
When
15.002(c).
error.” Id.
ing
object
statute we
consider the
attained,
sought to
circumstances
J & R and Garza
that
contend
because
enacted,
under which the statute was
then’ motion
requested
transfer
consequences
constructions,
15.002(a)
different
transfer based on both sections
and the
15.002(b),
legislative history.
statute’s
and the
court’s order
Gov’t
In requiring
Code 311.023.
stated
granted,
the motion was
to “find” each
three statutory
condi-
court must
it to be a
granting
tions before
convenience trans-
is immune
fer,
I believe the
directed the
review. The court below considered
claim,
court to communicate in
rejected
some fashion
this Court
findings
three
had been made so that
swallows it
pause,
without
pointing to our
would know that the law
general practice
had
in Texas that an order
been
reviewing
followed and a
court would
granting relief
specifying
know that
power
it had no
of review.
presumed
to have been based
on all
grounds.
asserted
44 of county domicile had modi- which all or a county of been R. by statutory exceptions. 34 Dan of or in the of county fied cause action accrued Price, Legisla- New Texas Venue Statute: if the defendant’s residence defendant was ” 855, History, Mary’s L.J. 857- Dwyer, tive St. person.’ a natural A. Erin Don- (1984) Ann. (citing Celleluori, Graves, Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. ald & A. Annu- Thomas (Vernon & Supp.1982- art. Survey al Texas Law: Texas Civil Pro- of 1983)(amended 1983)). However, growing cedure, 1371, 49 SMU L.Rev. 1375-76 alleged forum-shopping displeasure (1996) with (quoting Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. privilege delay of led to plea (Vernon 1986)). wholesale Ann.’ Code 15.001 28, May Act of venue reform 1983. See changes These were intended “to eliminate R.S., 385, 1-3,1983 1983, §§ Leg., 68th ch. continuing debate about where cause of plea Tex. Gen. Laws 2119-24. The “a provide action accrued” and post-judgment privilege replaced was with specifying brought rule venue for all suits subject appeal, guarantee venue against corporations.” Id. at 1376. for error. automatic reversal time, At the same the venue scheme was at This meant provision See id. 15.002(b) also amended to include sections fraud, great at risk if by to “plac[e] (c). 18, 1995, 74th May Leg., Act oversight, or otherwise venue negligence, R.S., 138,’ 1,§ Gen. ch. Laws of suit.” improper the ultimate Proponents of the amendment de- Price, supra I find no other in- at 879. 15.002(b) meaningful scribed section as “a stance the laws of Texas where promote reform” to “fairness and balance designated preliminary Legislature has laws,” giving in our the trial court significant be determination to so competing all of the “ability balance Thus, Leg- cannot be harmless error. trying to find that are involved in interests clearly proper islature considered place try a fair within the critical importance. Relating a lawsuit.” An Act to Venue for continuing par- allegations Beset 32 on Civil Actions: Debate Tex. S.B. suing nominal defendants and ties were House, Leg., 74th R.S. the Floor of claims to obtain bringing manufactured Duncan) 1995) 3, (May (testimony Rep. fora, again Legislature favorable more available at the Texas State (transcript venue reform comprehensive undertook Library). Law May Leg., Act 74th that, adding this 1-6, I refuse to believe R.S., §§ ch. 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws (codified to un provision, Legislature intended & Rem. 978-81 Tex. Civ. Prac. 15.001-66). just it had the careful scheme §§ ex- dermine Code (a). 15.002(a) Legis panded to include the created in subsection Was subsection venue,1 cynical really represent so as to four lature provisions current standard, litigants position that a lawful venue single supplanting the venerable *9 “ automatically appeal, ‘in vindiсated on proper was be provided which that venue (3) princi- county the of the defendant's Except provided as ... all law in otherwise state, brought: if pal in the defendant suits shall be office person; not a natural (1) the all or a substan- which (2), (3) (4) (1), do if Subdivisions giving tial of the events or omissions plaintiff county in the apply, in the occurred; rise claim of the accrual of the resided at time (2) county of in the defendant’s residence cause of action. the cause of action accrued at time 15.002(a). &Prac. Rem.Code person; Tex. Civ. defendant is a natural
45 Legislature’s a meth intent. And providing precisely fact “back door” while permit that would trial to insu od courts appeals’ bright- under the court of even any appel their from late venue transfers test, line who are so inclined Legislature late review at all? Or was the immune may make venue really lawyer so naive as to believe that no adding ‘granted simply by from review simply slip the words “convenience would grounds.’ on convenience parties” into a transfer motion while omitted). (citation at 39 S.W.3d solely argument evidence and presenting hopes on the merits of its venue motion in appeals that agree I with the court inadvertently luring the trial into court presented unique. here is the situation making its immune from I ruling appeal? Additionally, I pro- find no other statute questions both “no.” court answer As the by viding that determination noted, review, judge may be on more than based one rеversal, threat of safe important reason, one error being automatic guards against fraud. venue requiring wrong, finding other (citing v. Tex. Wilson Parks & Wildlife being judge totally the trial immune (Tex. p't 261 n. S.W.2d De Requiring review. a trial 1994); Temple, Maranatha Inc. v. Enter. order, court to state in its or otherwise Co., (Tex.App.— Prod. record, findings in include establish denied)). Houston [1st writ Dist.] motion to transfer venue is introducing flexibility While some into the system, still must in based on the convenience of the judge tended to make a conven sought when the defendant has also trans- ience transfer after a deter conscious traditional rules fer under is neces- mination, communicated to parties, sary preserve mandate opinion all court’s three 15.002(a) ruling that an erroneous section requirements had been met. automatically reversible. the Legislature’s Otherwise intention that the trial below pre- Because determinations under section 15.002(a) automatically multiple grounds be on sented with for venue reversible always could transfer, frustrated one of which was section counsel, or, judge, devious likely clever 15.002(b), and the trial court did not ex- here, happened simply by accident. plain in its order or otherwise that Therefore, I conclude that the Legislature venue transfer made was the conven- required the trial all of “find” parties, ience of the nor the trial court did these factors. 15.002(b) findings, make I section would Court, simplicity gеn- For the hold the trial order in court’s this case trumps eral rule all. The not at Court is under If is reviewable problems holding all curious about the its were to reach the merits of Court analysis creates. Instead the Court’s total agree with the is: presented pri- court of that Garcia acknowledge We the court of appeals’ proof ma facie that venue was concern that the usual County and that trial court erred Stan’ nonspecific favor of will make orders transferring Hidalgo County. the case to *10 many venue orders ‘immune from re- judgment the I would therefore affirm of But in on view.’ transfer orders based convenience, appears of appeals. that to been thе court 2) WAINWRIGHT, in dissenting. no was
Justice evidence submitted briefing hearing support the or at the of Intending shopping to stem and 3) statutory the fact and required findings gamesmanship, Legislature precluded the no indication in the that a there is record appellate reviewing courts from ven- judge signing aware even that ue ordered of transfers on the basis “con- effect a conven- generic parties venience of the and and witnesses Certainly ience transfer. justice.” in the of Tex. Prac. interest Civ. may appellate review of venue 15.002(b); restrict § An
& Rem.Code
see
Act Re-
upon
given
transfers
the satisfaction of
lating to
Actions: Debate
Venue
Civil
House,
conditions,
on Tex.
on
check
S.B. 32
thе Floor
but we should
to ensure
of
1995)
3,
(testimony
74th
Leg.,
(May
R.S.
by
the conditions were considered
tri-
Duncan)
Rep.
(transcript
of
available at
trigger
appellate
al
the bar on
courts
Library)
Law
[hereinafter
Texas State
review.
any
Debate on Tex. S.B.
Unlike
oth-
].32
goes
further and states
The Court
even
er
matters
orders issued
civil
state
intentionally
violate
a
can
(of
aware),
trial courts
which I am
deci-
recourse,
statute,
by granting
without
sions
transfer venue based
conven-
judge expressly
the transfer even if the
statute
ience
shielded
that “there was no evidence for a
states
entirely
appellate
review. Tex. Civ.
at 39.
convenience transfer.”
15.002(c).
Prac. &
But the
Rem.Code
occur,
If
this were
this Court should not
Legislature raises
shield
“where
countenance such conduct
the Texas
requisite
the court
elements
finds”
judicial
system,
interpret
much less
stat-
required
the convenience
transfer.1
ute in a manner that invites its violation.
added).
15.002(b)-(c)(emphasis
Not-
interpretation
this statute is
Court’s
statute,
withstanding the
of the
words
language
inconsistent with the statute’s
today
Court decides
that trial
need
courts
from,
departure
long-standing
not
comply
with
instruc-
precedent
give
are to
to all
effect
15.002(b)to
tions under section
find a con-
Epis-
in a
St.
the words
statute.
Luke’s
venience transfer with reference to the
Agbor,
copal Hosp. v.
three factors set out in the statute. 137
(Tex.1997);
Arnim,
Simmons v.
Now,
making
ref-
S.W.3d 39.
(1920).
The Court
220 S.W.
an
finding,
sign
erenced
express language
follow the
should
generieally grants
order that
minimum,
require,
simply
in the
anywhere
motion that recites
record that the trial
some indication
B
four talismanic words
“convenience
case for
court transferred the
parties”
insulate the
—and
consistent
parties.
approach
This
motion from
review for all time.
legislative
with the
preclusion
Court’s
this occurs
opinion,
Under
1)
of convenience transfers because
arguments
presented
review
even
were
legal sufficiency
briefing
permit
factual
the trial court
"the
at the
does
supporting a trans-
hearing
support
of a convenience
review of the evidence
being brought
other
favor of the action
in the
1. For a convenience transfer
court must
(3)
"(1)
county;
action
the transfer of the
find that
maintenance of the action in the
injustice
injustice
work
other
would not
of suit would work an
considering
party.”
Tex. Civ. Prac.
Rem.Code
movant’s economic
movant
(2)
15.002(b)(l)-(3).
opinion
does
personal
The Court’s
hardship;
the balance of
parties predominates
these three factors.
all the
mention
interests of
*11
proper
Venue was
fendant’s residence.
Appellate courts would search
fer.
sug-
never
County, and this Court
that
the Starr
only for some indication
record
not.
gests
that was
for the convenience
transfer was
If such an indication is
parties.
ruling, the
justifiсation for its
As further
record, then the transfer stands and there
judges
are too
contends that
Court
merits.
consideration of its
to such details before
busy
pay
attention
case,
signing
R
venue transfer orders.
Ramiro Garza and J &
In this
Services,
contrary, it is the sworn
complained at 38. On the
Valley
Inc.
Oilfield
pay
the law and
duty
uphold
County
that
was not a
Starr
legal
venue,
important
to such
asserting that “Plaintiffs’
careful attention
proper
indicates
action,
Only
the record
any,
did not arise
details.
when
cause of
effected a convenience
mandatory
and that “no
that
trial courts
County”
Starr
that the
then be satisfied
the main-
permissive exception authorizes
statutory
were followed while
County,
requisites
tenance of the action
Starr
intent
honoring
Specifically,
argued
defendants
also
Texas.”
transfers from
remove the merits of such
that Garza was not a resident
Starr
short,
trans-
In
when a
County
purposes.2
argu-
After
review.
for venue
sought on traditional venue
ing
Hidalgo
fer is also
venue was
to re-
grounds, it
not be onerous
County,
following
the motion stated in the
would
transferring a case un-
“Alternatively,
quire a trial court
single
R]
sentence:
&[J
15.002(b)
in some
to indicate
would show that venue should be trans-
der section
that,
record
after consider-
Hidalgo County
ferred to
for the conven- manner
factors, it
statutory
parties.”
ing
ience of the
on conven-
motion to transfer venue based
The motion neither cited nor referenced
and witnesses. This
parties
ience of the
any supporting arguments of inconven-
developing jurisprudence,
avoid
injustice
parties.
ience or
At the
today,
guess
on a
the Court does
based
hearing,
parties
argue
did not
have intended to
judge “might
the court should transfer
the case
on convenience
[the motion]
convenience,
based on
neither the court
Rather than
grounds.”
sumption “[generally, is that we must af- Charles any ground firm a court’s ruling accompanying motion is meritorious.” I at 37. whether question The STATE of Texas. insertion in a can few words always raise an additional meritorious No. 623-03.
ground motions Court Appeals of Texas. Court Criminal support position (e.cj.,summary cites to its judgments jurisdiction). pleas June can, is also an assuming Even this appropriate basis the decision. It is
inappropriate for the apply Court trump a
appellate presumption to statuto-
ry especially instruction. This true
when the was enacted as of a statute mandate, here, Legislative as
clear existed shopping.
to address venue See Debate on . (testimony supra Rep.
Tex. S.B.
Duncan). Moreover, examples the Court’s ap-
of motions to which this
plies inapposite; does require finding summary jurisdiction;
judgment plea or a transfer. The
does a convenience attempts
Court avoid this distinction
relying guess presumption. on a and a I opinion’s of interpret-
fear method
ing pandora’s could box open by not consequences enforc- unintended
ing instruction to trial specified
courts to factors to order a “find” this can ac- when
complished undermining pre-
clusion on review. reasons, dissent, I respectfully
For these join I I sections and II of Chief
Justice PHILLIPS’s dissent.
respectfully part with Chief Justice to his dissent
PHILLIPS’s opinion may be
statement that the Court’s reading a literal
supported
statute.