## NO. 12-07-00091-CV IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S
RAY C. H IL L AN D B OB BIE L. HI

LL , § APP EAL FRO

M T HE 2 41 ST APPELLANTS V. § JU DICIAL DI

STR ICT CO UR T JO ELL EN JAR VIS, NE WEL

L S. JAR VIS, JOHN R. JARV

IS AND SAR A ANN JARV

IS THOMPSON, APP ELL EES § SMI TH CO UN TY

, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION This is an action for conver sion and unauthorize d harve sting of standing timber. The jury found Appe llants Ray C. Hill and Bobbie L. Hill had conver ted timber owne d by Appellee s Jo Ellen Ja rv is, Ne we ll S. Ja

rv is, Jo hn R. Jarv is, a ndSara An n J arv is T ho mps on Ja rv is andthat A pp e lla nts had ac ted in bad faith or in r eckle ss disre gard of or with c onscious indiffer ence to the rights of the Jarvis fa mily. The jury found dama ges in the amount of $14,175 f or the marke t price of

the timber taken, a nd $11,970 for the c ost of repla nting. Based on these findings , t h e t ri al judge re ndere d judgment for thre e times the marke t price pur suant t o T ex as Natura l Resource s Code section 151.051, the cost to repla nt, prejudgment intere st, and court c osts, less the stipulated cre dit for the Ja rv is famil y’ s sh are of ta xe s pa id by Hi ll. Ap pe lla nts pr e se nt fo ur iss ue s on app e a l. W e rev e rs e
a ndre nd e r i n p art , a nda ff ir m in pa rt
. B ACKG ROUND The Jarvis family and the Hills owned undivided intere sts in a fi ft y ac re wo o d ed tract. In 2002, the Jarvis family filed suit to partition the trac t. On July 22, 2002, the trial court conducted the tr ia l of

the pa rt iti on a c tio n. Th e c ou rt fo un d th a t a ll p art ie s so ug ht t o have the pr op e rt y2

pa rt ition e d inkin d a ndthat th e Ja rv is f a mil y o wn e d a

63 % i nte re st i n th e pr op e rty a ndthe Hi lls a 37% intere st. On April 11, 2003, the trial court signed the “Judgment Direc ting Partiti on” setting forth the e xact inter ests of the pa rties, appointing commissioners to p ar t ition the property and a surveyor to assist them, finding the estimated fee s and expense s of the commissioners and surveyor to be $5,800, and ordering the parties to de posit their pro rata share of that amount into the r egistry of the c ou rt
. Th e Ja rv ise s d e po sit e d the ir

sh are of the e sti ma te d p art iti on c os ts i n th e re gis try o f the c ou rt
. The Hills, howeve r, neve r deposited their share . As a re sult, the commissi o n er s and the surve yor
never completed the pa

rtition. Ray Hill did not agree w ith the partition decre e, but the Hills did not appeal the pa rt i tion judgment. Without consulting the J arvis family, Ray Hill sold all the m erc hantable timber on the property for $22,500. Ray Hill did not inf orm the Jarvis family or any of its membe rs of the sale

. John Jarvis learned fr om a third party that Ray H ill had sold the tim ber to a logging c ompany that clea r cut the timber. In De cembe r 2003, the Jarvis family sued the Hills alleging the Hills had no right to sell and
remove their 63% of

the timber, bec ause the trial court had order ed the tra ct partitioned in kind. The Jarvises sought dama ges for the conve rsion of t heir timber a nd treble damages unde r Texa s Natura l Resource s Code section 151.051 for unauthorized harvesting of standing timber. At the close of the tr ia l, the jury f

ou nd , a s f oll ow s:

(1 ) R a y H ill c a u se d a n o th e r p e rs o n to h a rv e st sta n d in g ti m b e r o w n e d b y th e Ja rv is f am i l y w i t hout t hei r pe r m i s s i on; ( 2) Ray Hi l l c onver t ed t i m ber ow ned by t he J ar vi s f am i l y; ( 3) I n c onver t i ng s uch t i m ber , Ray Hi l l a ct ed i n b ad fai t h or i n r ec kl es s di s r ega r d or w i t h c ons ci ous i ndi f f er enc e t o t he r i ght s of t he J ar vi s f am i l y; a nd ( 4) D am age s of $14, 175 for t he m ar ket pri ce of t he J ar vi s fa m i l y’ s t i m ber a nd $11, 970 f or t he cos t t o r epl ant t hei r t i m ber w oul d r ea s onabl y c om pens at e t he J ar vi s f am i l y.
Based on these findings, the trial court r ender ed judgm e n t p u rsuant to Texa s Natura l Resource s Code
se c tio n 1 51 .0 51 a wa

rdi ng the Ja

rv is f a mil y d a ma ge s f

or thr e e tim e s th e mark e t pric e , th e c os t to repla nt, prejudgment intere st, and court c osts less the stipul ated c redit for the Jarvis family’s share of taxe s paid by the Hills after 2002.3 E XCLUSI ON OF E VI DENCE OF U NP AI D T A X ES Inthe ir fi rs t is su e , th e Hi lls c on te ndthe tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d b y e xc lud ing e vid e nc e that th e Ja rv is family had failed and refused to pay real estate taxes in proportion to their ownership for sevente en year s. In their sec ond issue, the Hills argue that the trial court err ed by ruling that the Jarvis family’s failure to pay prope rty taxes wa s res judicata base d on the 2003 “Judgment Dire cting Partition.” Appli cable Law A cotenant who incurs expe nse nece ssary to protect the c ommon property is entitled to be reimburse d by the other c otenants. Wo ole y v . W e st , 391 S.W.2d 157, 160 (T ex . C i v . App.–Tyler 1965, writ ref ’d n.r.e .). On partition, a cotena nt w ho expends funds nece ssary to pr otect or pre serve the common pro p er t y is entitled to have those expe nditures cha rged to the te nants in common
acc ording to their pro rata owner ship. Gonzalez v. Gonzalez , 5 5 2 S .W.2d 175, 181 (Te x. Civ. App.–Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref’d n.r .e.). Expend i t u res necessa ry to prese rve the common property include thos e for taxes, insurance, and repairs. See Duke v. Squibb , 392 S.W.2d 885, 888 (Tex. Civ. App.–Te xarkana 1965, no writ).

“ A p artit io n c a se , u nli ke oth e r p ro c e e din gs , h a s tw o f ina l ju dg me nts , a ndthe fi rs t on e is appea lable as a

final judgment.” Griffin v. Wolfe , 6 10 S.W .2 d 4 66 , 4 66 -6 7 ( Te x. 19 80 ). Inthe fi rs t trial, “the c ourt shall determine the s hare or i ntere st of ea ch of the joint owners or c laimants in the
rea l estate sought to be divided, and all questions of law or equity af fec ting tit le to such land whic h may arise.” See T EX . R. C IV . P. 760. At the first trial, a cote nant “may ha ve an a ccount f rom another for rents and profits rec eived, wa ste committed, moneys fraudulently obtained, betterments made, and taxe s, etc., pa id

. . . ,” and “ the court has a right to adjust all such equities. . . .” Sayers v. Py lan , 139 Tex. 5 7 , 61, 161 S.W.2d 769, 771-72 (1942) . The fir st judgment or preliminary dec ree determines “the merits of the case ,” conc ludes “the rights of the parties,” and must be cha llenged by a dire ct appe al. Burkit

t v. B ro yl es , 340 S.W.2d 822, 823 (Tex. Civ. App.–W aco 1960, w rit ref ’d n.r.e.) (quoting Cann on v . He mph ill , 7 Tex. 184, 1[96-] 97 (1851))

. The sec ond decr ee a dopts the report of t he commissioners. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 769, 771. Matters de cided in the pr eliminary or first dec ree cannot be challenge d in an appe al f ro m t h e trial c ourt’s orde r adopting the commissioners’ re port. White v . M itc he ll , 6 0 T e x. 16 4, 16 5 ( 18 83 ); Burkitt , 340 S.W.2d at 823-24. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, preve nts the re litigation of a claim or ca use of a ction that has bee n finally adjudicate d, as well as related matters that, with the use of diligenc e, should have b een litigated in the prior suit. Bonn iwell v. Beech Aircraft Corp. , 6 6 3 S. W

. 2 d 8 1 6 , 8 1 8 ( Tex.4

1984). Discussion The Hills contend the trial court e rre d in excluding evidenc e that they pa id taxes on the property and that the Jarvi s fa m ily refuse d to pay their proportionate share of the taxe s “for sevente en plus yea

rs or at least three of the last five year s.” The trial c ourt ruled that Ray H ill could e xplain that he cut the timber to pay the taxes, but that if he te sti fi e d to ta xe s pa id be fo re Ju ly 22 , 20 02 , the date of the fi rs t de c re e in the pa rt iti on su it, the trial court would instruct the jury “that Ray Hill did not have the l egal right to sell any tim ber from the jointly o wn ed l an d in order to r ecove r his claim for any taxes pa id before July 2002.” Without mentioning dates or amounts, Ray Hill asserte d sever al times during his testimony that he sold the timber to pay the ta xes. At the c lose of evide nce, the parties stipulated the amount of taxes pa id b y th e Hi lls sin c e 20 02 wa s $ 1, 75 8. 61 a nd that the Ja rv ise s we re re sp on sib le fo r 6 3% of tho se ta xe s. The pa

rtition judgm ent determined the rights of the parties with re spect to any a djustment of e qu iti e s, inc lud ing a ny c la im f or re imb ur se me nt the Hi lls mig ht h a ve ha d f or the ta xe s th e y p a id be fo re the 20 02 jud gme nt. Th e Hi lls did no t app e a l the pa rt iti on jud gme nt. Th e tr ia l c ou rt c or re c tly
c on c lud e d th a t, u nd e r the do c tr ine of re s judi c a ta , the 20 02 pa rt iti on jud gme nt barr e d th e Hi lls ’ c la im for r eimbursement f

or taxe s paid befor e the judgment. Theref ore, the trial court did not err in ruling that if the Hills off

ere d evidenc e of their payment of taxe s befor e 2002, it would instruct the jury that the pa rt iti on jud gme nt b arr e d th e Hi lls ’ r e c ov e ry fo r t a xe s th e y p a id b e fo re 20 02 . The Hills ’ f ir st and sec ond issues are overr uled.
D A M A GES FOR THE U NAUT HOR I Z E D H ARV ES TI NG OF T I M BER Inthe ir thi rd i ss ue , th e Hi lls c on te ndthe tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d ina wa

rd ing the Ja

rv is f a mil y damage s for the unauthorized harvesting of timber w ithout allowing the Hills reimburse ment for the Ja rv is f a mil y’ s p ro po rt ion a te sh are of the ta xe s. Appli cable Law Al tho ug h “ a ny c o- te na nt m a y s e ll a ndc on ve y ti mbe r s ta nd ing a ndgr owi ng on c omm on ly held prope rties and pa ss good titl e ther eto,” “ such rule is not without limi tation.

. . . [B ]ot h the selling co-tena nt and his vendee [ar e] liable to the non-selling co-te nants for the ir proportionate part of the timber c ut and re moved wher e the timber c ut was more tha n the selling co-tena nt’s proportionate pa

rt.” Gr e e n v . Cr awf or d , 662 S.W.2d 123, 127 (Tex. A pp.–Tyler 1983, writ ref’ d5

n.r.e.)

. A cotena nt may maintain a conver sion suit against another cotena nt w ho has appr opriated the entire commonly owned prope rty for his own use and bene fit. Cas s v. S tephens , 156 S.W.3d 38, 61 (Tex. A pp.–El Paso 2004, pet. denied). If possession is initially l awf ul, demand and r efusa l to return the property may be r equire d for the c ause of action to ac crue . Id . Demand and ref usal are not nece ssary, howe ver, w hen the possessor ’s ac ts ma n i fe s t a clea r re pudiation of the plaintiff’s rights. Id . Texa s Natura l Resource s Code section 151.051, entitled “D amage s fo r Unauthorized Ha rv e sti ng ” pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art , a s f oll ow s:
(a ) A p e rs o n w h o h a rv e sts sta n d in g ti m b e r w ith k n o w le d g e th a t t h e h a rv e stin g is w i t hout t he per m i s s i on of t he ow ner of

t he s t andi ng t i m ber an d a p er s on w ho ca us es a not her pe r s on t o harvest st andi ng t i m ber w i t hout t he per m i s s i on of t he ow ner of

t he s t andi ng t i m ber a r e j oi nt l y a nd s eve r al l y l i abl e t o t he ow ner f or dam ages i n an a m ou nt equal t o t hree t i m es t he m ar ket pri ce of t he t i m ber harves t ed w i t hout pe r m i s s i on.

T EX . N AT ’ L R ES
. C ODE A NN . § 151.051(a) (Ve rnon Supp. 2007). Although the term “w aste” does not include ordina ry dep re ci at i on due to age or use, the failure of a c otenant in possession to properly pro t ec t t he common prope rty amounts to an ac t of waste. Sad

le r v . D uv all , 8 15 S.W .2 d 2 85 , 2 92 -9 3 ( Te x. Ap p. –T exa rk a na 19 91 , w ri t de nie d) ; see also Guf fe y v . St ro ud , 16 S.W.2d 527, 529 (Tex. Comm ’n App. 1929, opini on adopted)

. The c utting of timbe r re su lti ng in pe rm a ne nt inj ury is w a ste un le ss the re is s pe c if ic pe rm iss ionto c ut the tr e e s. Anderson v. Anderson , 97 S.W.2d 513, 515 (Tex. Civ. App.–Fort Worth 1936, no writ). Discussion Th e Hi lls fi rs t c omp la in that th e iss ue inq uiri ng “Di d Ra y H ill c aus e a no the r p e rs on to harve st standing tim ber ow ned by the Jarvis family, without the permission of the Jarvis family?” was improper , beca

use the que stion “presumes se parate owner ship contrary t o T exas la w on cotena ncy.” T he Hills did not object to the questions at trial; the ref ore, the ir complaint is waived. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 272. Secondly, the Hills contend that “ there was no thef t and treble damage s are unauthorize d by
c a se la w o r [ Te xa s N a tur a l Re so ur c e s Co de ] S e c tio n 1 51 .0 51 .” Ev e n a ssu min g th a t w he n Ray H ill
so ld the timbe r, a

c ote na nc y s til l e xis te d d e sp ite the prior e ntry o f the fi rs t de c re e in the pa rt iti on su it,
no thi ng in the statut e e xc us e s Ray H ill ’s un auth oriz e d s a le . T he statut e do e s not ex c lud e c ote na nts from its imposit ion of treble damages.6

The Hills next contend that a cotena nt ha s no duty to restore c ommon property to its original condition. Although they wer e not liable for depre ciation to the prope rty bec ause of age or use, the Hills had a duty not to commit waste and we re liable to the cotena nts for bre ach of that duty. Fin a lly , th e Hi lls re ite rate the ir c omp la int

that th e y w e re no t a llo we d r e imb ur se me nt f or the ir payment of the Jarvis family’s proportionate share of the taxes. The court a llowed re imbursement for those ta xes paid since the first partition j udgment in the amount stipulated by the parties. A s we have pr eviously explained, the d ec ree partitioning the property is conclusively presumed to ha ve adjusted the equities among the joint owne rs as they e xisted when the de cre e wa s entere d. See Reed v. Robertson , 106 Tex. 56, 59, 156 S.W. 196, 197 (1913) . The Hill’s third issue is overr uled.
D A M A G ES A GA I N ST B OBBIE L. H I LL In their f ourth issue, the Hills contend the trial court e rre d in awar ding damages a gainst Ray Hill’s spouse, “Bobby L. Hill,” abse nt proof of a cts committed by her. The y argu e t h er e wa s no evidenc e pre sented of he r participation in the sale or r emoval of the timber and the c ourt submitted
no iss ue s r e ga

rd ing he r i nv olv e me nt. Appli cable Law A p e rs on is l ia

ble fo r the a c ts o f h e r s po us e on ly if the sp ou se a c ts a s h e r a ge nt, or the sp ou se incurs a debt for nece ssaries. T EX . F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 3.201(c) (Ve rnon 2006). A spouse doe s not act a s an age nt of th e o t h er s o lely beca use of the ma

rriage relationship. T EX . F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 3.201(c) (Ve rnon 2006). Nor is the fac t of their mar

riage evidenc e of the appar ent authority of one
s p ouse to ac t as age nt for the other

. Patel v. Kuciemba , 8 2 S. W

. 3 d 5 8 9 , 5 9 5 ( T e x . App.–Corpus Christi 2002, pet. denied). Ne ither spouse is individually liable for the torts of the other spouse, unless liability i s imposed under a doctrine suc h as age ncy, re spondeat superior, or joint enterprise. Lawrence v . Hardy , 5 83 S.W .2 d 7 95 , 7 99 (T e x. Civ . App .– Sa n Ant on io 1 97 8, writ r e f’ d n .r .e .) . A ll
commun ity p r o p e r ty is s u b je c t t o th e to r ti o u s li ab il ity o f e ith e r s p o u s e in c u rr e d d u r in g ma rr ia ge. T EX . F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 3.202(d) ( Vernon 2006). The Jarvis family points t o Ray Hill’s deposit of the $22,500 in the Hills’ joint bank acc ount as evide nce of

Bobbie Hill’s participation in the conversion of t he Jarvis family’s shar e of the timber. They a rgue that by her a cce ptance of t he benefits of R ay Hill ’s unauthorized sale of t he ti mber, she ratified and became responsible for his actions. “Ratification may occ ur whe n a princ ipal, though [s]he had no knowledge originally of the unauthorize d act of [her ] age nt, retains the be nefits of the transac tion a fter acquiring f ull knowle dge.” Land Title of Dallas v. F.M. Stigl er, Inc. , 609 S.W.2d7

754, 756 (Tex. 1980). The knowledge to support r atification may be shown by evidenc e either of kn ow le dg e or of fact s f

ro m w hic h s uc h k no wl e dg e ma y r e a so na bly be imp ute d to the princ ipa l. Wyatt v. McGre

gor , 855 S.W.3d 5, 13 (Tex. A pp.–Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied). There is, howeve r, no evidenc e in this rec ord sufficient to show that Bobbie Hill was awa re of her husband’s a ctions or of his deposit of money in their joint chec king acc ount. The evide nce
c le arl y f a lls sh ort of de mon str a tin g the “ fu ll aw are ne ss” that is pr e dic a te to r a tif ic a tio n. Th e Hi lls ’ fourth issue is sustained.

D I S PO S I T I ON Th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s jud gme nt a ga ins t Bo bb ie L. Hi ll, ind ivi du a lly , is re v e rse d a nd judgment rendered that the Jarvis family take nothing ag ains t Bobbie L. Hill, indi vidually. In all other
re sp e c ts, the jud gme nt i s affirmed

. BILL BA SS Justice
Opinion delivere d June 30, 2008. Panel c ons i s t ed of

W or t hen, C

. J. , G ri

f f i t h, J

. , and Bas s , Ret i r ed Jus t i ce , Twel f t h Cour t of

Appeal s , Ty l er

, s i t t i ng by a ssig n m e n t.

(PUBLISH)