Case Information
*0 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 08/7/2015 10:53:20 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
*1 ACCEPTED 04-14-00667-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 8/7/2015 10:53:20 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK NO. 04-14-00667-CV IN THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS At SAN ANTONIO. TEXAS RAMIRO & EDNA RAMOS AND FEDERICO SALAZAR. JR. APPELLANTS v. THE UNKNOWN HEIRS OF TOMASA GONZ ALF,ZAND NARCISO GONZALEZ APPELLEES
APPELLANTS' REPLY BRIEF On appeal from Cause No. DC-09-559; 381't Judicial District Court of Starr Counfy, Texas Keirh P. Miller State Bar No. 14093725 Megan H. Kucera State Bar No.24076449 LAW OFFICES OF KEITH P. MILLER. P.C. 14350 Northbrook, Suire 150 San Antonio, Texas 78232 Telephone: (210) 524-9040 Telecopier: (210) 267 -2982 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
IDENTITY OF TRIAL JUDGE. AAW
*2 Parties to Pr lceeding Couqsel J. ManuelBa lales
Trial, udge Ramiro & Ed ra Ramos and Keith P. Miller Federico Sala zar, Jr. Megan H. Kucera Appel ants Law Offices of Keith P. Miller, P.C. 14350 Northbrook, Suite 150 San Antonio, Texas 78232 Telephone: (210) 524-9040 Telecopier: (210) 267-2982
The Unknow Heits of Narciso Gonzalez Orlando Rodriguez Appel ees 6l I W. Main Street Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 Telephone: (956) 488-0772 Telecppier: (956) 488-8920
The Unknow: Heirs of Tomasa Gorualez Minefva Garza Appel 200 E. 2nd Street
?ES
Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 Telephone: (956) 487 -7 l3l Telecppier: (956) 487-8806
*3 Alicia O. Rar tos John A. Pope, III Alicia R. Sali ras Atlas & Hall Alma Gonzal :z Hoin 200 N. Britton Avenue Alvan Gutien ez Rio Qrande City, Texas 78582 Carmen Sala: 4r G&rza Teleflrone: (956) 488-1896 Dalia Nora B Ranlirez Telecopier: (956) 488-6482 DeliaNorma l. Valadez DianaN.B. Iv edina Dora N. Bustr manlte Eddie Guzma Eddie Vasqur z Villa Elia G. Garza
', Jr. Fiacro Salaza Fidel Salazar Gloria ot Homero Hect >r Gonzalez Javier J. Gon: alez Jose Emilio (
onzalez, Jr. Juan Gutierre Juan Manuel iarciia Juan Ramon I ionzalez Laura Gonzal :z Guerrera Maria Del Ca men Salazar Maria Elia Gr nzalqzGarza Maria Emma l. Ramirez Mario Cesar (
ionzalez Omar Garcia Pablo Idefons > Gonzalez Sergio L. Bus ;amante Veronica Mar tinez Armando Vil arreal, Jr. Daniel J. G ia Elva Gonzale a 100 E. 5th Street Nanette Rom Rio Grande City, Texas 78582
I
Telepfrone: (956) 488-8 I 70 Noel Villarre I
I
Vilda Daniel Telecopier: (956) 488-8129 Vilma Bilv *4 Alicia S. Lyo J.M. "Chuey" Alvarez
N
Antonio Eliz< Alvarez Law Firm ndo Carmen Salaz ar Sicroff 501 N. Britton Avenue Graciela R. S rldania Rio Grande City, Texas 78582 Telephone: (956) 487 -4871 Homero Garc a Telecopier: (956) 487 -7 521 ,Garcia Irma Elizondr r Elizondo Jose Venancir Maria A. Ben lvides Maria F. Glas lr Norma Garcii Olga Guerrerr
I
Rodolfo Cane les, Jr. Roque V. Me tdez Santos Garcia , Jr' Yolanda Garc ia Iarreal Adalberto Vil Pro Se Adan Ramos, Jr. Aissa Lynette Salazar real Alberto Villa Amelia Salaz r Yunez Arabela Gonz alez te Salazar Arlene Lucce
a* (Villaneal-Garza) Belinda Garc: -Ramos Cindy Ramos zar Guerrero Dora Lisa Sal
'eal Efraim Villar -R os Efrain Ramos Erica Guzmar L Uribe
',ar Gerardo Sala Gilda Ramos os-Guena Graciela Rarn Hayde Correr Irma Salazar lisneros Javier Salinas
/illarreal-Vasquez Maria Elena' Maria Eliva (
rdtZO. Maria Elsa G fiiercez Maria Emma Bustamante Maria Esther Gonzalez Maria Eva Rz mos-Garcia Melissa Salaz ar Longoria Roberto (BoL by) Salazar Rolando L. V illarreal Rosa Enna G tnzalez Sandra Becke r Sandra Villar :eal-Smith
l l l *5 Sergio L. Bustarnante, Jr. Socorro Gonzal<:z Sylvia Ramos Veronica Salazar Rii vera
1 V *6 TABLE OF'CONTENTS IDENTITY gF TRIAL JUDGE, PARTIES, AND COUNSEL .............i TABLE OF INDEX OF ARGU
TO APPELEES' RESPONSE TO ISSUE NO. I ........I REP TO APPELEES' RESPONSE TO ISSUE NO. 2 ,......,2 REP TO APPELEES' RESPONSE TO ISSUE NOS. 3 &4......... .........3 PRAYER CERTIFICA CERTIFICA *7 Tex. R. Civ. Tex. R. Civ.
STATUTES
Texas Pro Code $ 29.002 (Vernon 2014) .................3.4
CASES
Walker v. P , 827 S.W.2d 833. 840 (Tex. 1992)..
1 ) . . ' . . . . , L r - Schluter v. Se l, 194 s.w.2d 125 (Tex. Civ. A wL257r753 Hill v. Jarvis, (Tex. App. - Wheeler v. P illips,20ll WL 4011455, I I (Tex. App. -
ustin 201 1, pet. denied) ............. I v. Mason,334 S.W.3d 39,45 Bailey- (Tex. App. - Prize Energt esources, L.P. v. Cliff Hoskins, Inc., 345 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App. -
Antonio 2011, no pet.)
.......... I
Casso v. Full ton, 2006 WL 2612600.3 (Tex. App. - wL257r753 Hill v. Jarvis, (Tex. App. - Wheeler v. P l l i ps ,2 0Il WL 4 01 1455, I I (Tex. App. -
u s t i n 2 0 1 1 , p e t . d e n i e d ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Prize Energ,, ces, L.P. v. Cliff Hoskins, lnc.,345 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App. -
Antonio 2011, no pet.)..... .......2
VI
*8 Orix Capital Murke'ts, LLC tt. La Villit,t ,\,lotor Inns, J.V., 32g S.W.3cl 30,44 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 2010, pet. denied)
vi i *9 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES REPLY TO APPELLEES' RESPONSE TO ISSUE NO. 1: Appellees appear to misapprehend the nature of Appellants' arguments. Appellants are not making a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, as the factual findings in this case were in Appellants' fal'or. The trial court specificcttLy .fourul that Appellarlts "were the only heirs of Tomasa and Narciso Gonzalez who expended funds for the preservation of the land in question after the deaths of the Gonzalez's in 1983" and "paid more than $8 I ,873.82 for ad valorem taxes, maintenance, and the preservation of the property for over 3l years.'" (C.R. 634-638). However, despite these faLctual findings by the trial court, Appellants' claim fbr equitable reimbursemenr was denied due to the trial court's misapprehension or misapplication of the law.
It is the misapplication of the law which amounts to an abuse of discretion ancl which Appellants now appeal. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 84Cr (Tex. 1992). Accordingly, in accordance vrith Texas Rule of Appellant Procedure 38, Appellants adequately briefed the law which they allege was misapplied and clearly set forth their argume.nt for reversal. (Appellants' Brief at 9-ll). There is no need for Appellants to put forth more e'vidence "of when they had [paid]" or "clear and convincing evidence" as argued by Appelleesr. (Appellees'Brief at7-9). The trial court's finding that Appellants "paid more than $81,873.82 for ad valorem taxes, maintenance, and the preservation of the [common] property" entitl: Appellants, as a matter of law, to an equitable lien to enforce repayment of this sum from thei,r cotenants. (C.R. 636, Pl.'s Ex. 3-23); see Slchluter v. Sell, 194 S.W.2d 125 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1946, no writ); see also Hill v. Jarvis, 1}00tl WL 2571753 (Tex. App. - Tyler 2008, pet. dr:nied); see also LVheeler v. P h i l l i p s , 2 0 l l W L 4 0 1 1 4 5 5 , 1 1 ( T e x . A p p . - A u s t i n 2 0 l l , p e t . d e n i e d ) ; s e e e . g . B a i l e y l r l a s o n v . Mason,334 S.W.3d 39,45 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2008, pet. denied); Prize Energy Resources, L.P. *10 v. cliff Hoskin.s, Inc., 345 s.w.3d 537 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 2011, no pet.). The trial court's denial of Appellants' claim for an equitable lien was a clear a.buse of discretion and must be reversed on appeal. Walker v. Packer,827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (holding a trial court has no discretion to determine what the law is or in applying the law to the facts).
REPLY TO AITP-ELLEES' RESPONSE TO ISSUE NO. 2:
Again, l\ppellees have failed to grasp the nature of Appellatrts' arguments. While it is true that Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33 requires a party to object in order to preserve error, Appellants are not complaining of the trial court's admission or failure to admit a piece of evidence. Appellants complain of the court's inteqpretation of Te;ras Property Code $ 29 as being the exclu:sive procedural mechanism for recor,'ering sums owed for ad valorem taxes by a cotenant and the court's failure to recognize recent opinions from the various courts of appeal recognizing and affirming the equitable cause of action for reimb,ursement by a cotenanr, a remedy separate from that afforded by Chapter 29. Casso v. Fullerton, 2006 WL 2612600,3 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 2006, pet. denied); Hill v. Jarvis, 2008 WL 2511753 (Tex. App. - Tyler 2008, pet. denied); Wheeler v. Phillips,20l I WL 4011455,11 (Tex. App. - Austin 2011, pet. denied); see e.g. Bailey Mason v. Mason,334 S.W.3d 39,45 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2008, pet. denied); Prize linergy Resources, L.P. v. Clilf Hoskins, Inc., 345 S.\l/.3d 537 (Tex. App. - San Antcrnio 2011, no pet.). It is well established that a trial courl has no discretion to determine wha1. the law is or in applying the law to the facts. Walker v. Packer,827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). Misapplication of the law, as we have here, is by definition an abuse of discretion and is subject to reversal. Orix Capital Markets, LLC v. Lu Villita Motor Inns, J.V., 329 S.W.3d 30,44 (Tex. App. - San A.ntonio 2010, pet. denied) (a trial court abuses its discretion and is subject to *11 reversal when it
acts without reference to guiding rules or principles of law or misapplies the law). REPLY TO A
TO Appellants did not rely on Chapter 29 ofthe Texas Properly Code and any findinlg by the trial court to thre contrary, is simply not supported by the record. Appellants can only assume that the "support" referred to by the trial court in its final judgment was Appellants, a'gument that the may language in $ 29.002(a) of the Texas Properly code clearly indicates that the provision was not intended to be mandatory or exclusive and did not usurp the comrrLon law cause of action relied on by the Appellants. Tex. Prop. Code $ 29.002(a) (Vernon Z0l4). It is undeniable that Appellants fervently argued at trial, and on appeal, that Chapte r 29 ofthe 'Iexas Property Code'was just one of several means to obtain reimbursement. (V RR. 30-32; C.R,291- 308)' A cursonr review of Appellants' pleadings and the trial transcript clearly indicate t:his. Id. Because of the sheer number of potential heirs ol Tomasa and Narciso Gonzalez precluded Appellants from complying with Chapter 29, Appellants relied on the common law ciiuse of action of equitable reimbursement only.
Furthernlore, Appellees argue that Appellants failed to avail themselves to the remedy of citation by publication under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 116 & ll7. Tex. R. Civ. p. 116 & 117. However, Appellees are mistaken. The unknown heirs of Tornasa and Narciso G<'tnzalez were in fact cited by publication. (C.R. 5-16). Any error in the citation in this matter was'waived by the subsequent appearances o1'the parties, including the appearances of the two attorrreys ad litem appointed to represent the unknown heirs. The trial court's finding that Chapter 29 controlled the clisposition of this matter is far from "academic" as urged by the Apeellees. (Appellees' Brief at 17). Furthermore, citation by publication of the unknown heirs does not
*12 that it was impossible for Appellants to comply with several of the specific Section 29.002(b)t or that the trial court misapplied the law to the facts. Tex.
Prop. Code g .002(b) (Vernon 2014).
PRAYEB,
ts pray the court will reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment Appel in Appellants favor. Appellants pray that all costs of this appeal will be taxed against Appellees. Appellants y for general Code $ 29.002(b) states as follows:
I exas (b) The petition contain: (l) a description ofthe property; (2) the name ofeach known owner ofthe propefty; (3) the interest held by each known owner ofthe property; (4) the total amount paid by the petitioner for the defendant's share of ad valorem taxes imposed on the property; and (5) if applicable, the amount paid by the defendant to the petitioner to reimburse the petitioner for paying the defendant's share of ad valorem taxes imposed on the property. Tex. Prop. Code $ 29.002(b) (Vernon 20 I 4).
4 *13 I hereby certify that this brief conforms to Rule 9.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
*14 certify by my signature below that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served ified Mail Return Receipt Requested E Class Mail
I
X T ecopler ivery John . Olson Law ffice of John A. Olson 2063 Creek River io, Texas 78259 San T No. (210) 8s8-6780
Rodriguez 6 l l . Main Street Rio City, Texas 78582 Telt er No. (956) 488-8920 Mi Garza 200 E 2nd Street Rio City, Texas 78582 T No. (9s6) 487-8806 John . Pope,III Atlas Hall 200 N Britton Avenue Rio G City, Texas 78582 Tel ier No. (956) 488-6452 Dan J. Garcia
100 E.
5th Street Rio City, Texas 78582 T er No. (956) 488-8129
the day of August, 2015. 6