### NUM BER 13-07- 0002 6-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
VA LE RIO LL A NES , A pp ellan t,
v . OLA N BEN GE, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 3 29t h Dist rict C ou rt of W ha rton C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s R od rigu ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez This i s a n appea l from the g ra nt of s ummary j u d gm e n t in fav or

of Ol an Ben g e,
a p p e llee, i n a t re spas s t o tr y ti tl e l aw sui t. By

four is sues , Va ler io Lla nes, appel lan t,
c on te nd s t ha t th e tr i al co ur t er r ed in g r an ti ng the mot i on f or su mma r y j ud g me nt

. W e affi r m.T he p r oceeds wer e di st r i but ed t o, am ong ot her s, t hr ee j udgm ent cr edi t or s— Pat t er son, W el l s Far go, 1 a n d C o n n ie D a v ila . N o n e o fth e r e c ip ie n ts o fth e p r o c e e d s a r e p a r tie s in th is a p p e a l. 2 I. B A CKGRO UND O n Ma rc h 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 , t h e Co u n t y Ci vil Co u rt a tL a w Nu m b e r Fo u r in Ha rr is Co u n t y, T exas (county court), rend ered a def ault judgmen t in favor of Pat terson , Boyd, & Lowery (P atterson) to re cov er

the amount o f $7,550 fro m Lla nes. N o appea l w as per fected fro m the 2 004 defaul t j udg ment. Subs eq uentl y , Pa tterson filed an a ppl ic ati on for a tur nov er of Lla nes' s p ro per

ty and for th e appoi ntment of a r ecei v er to tak e pos ses si on of Ll anes' s n onex empt proper

ty and to sel l it to sat is fy the jud g ment. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN . § 31. 002 (Verno n 2 0 08) ("T urno v er Stat ute "). On May 28, 200 4, th e cou nty court orde red Llan es to turn over the f ollowi ng: "a ll che cks, cash, se curities (stocks and bon ds), pr omis sor

y note s, document s o f tit le , credit c ar ds, av ail abl e l ine s o f cr edi t, personal pr oper ty pur chas ed s inc e the date of the judg ment, re al proper ty deeds and cont ra cts
ow ned by

or i n t h e n a me of Defendant [Ll anes] ." It is unc lea r from the re cord w hether Lla nes compl ied w it h the turnov er order

. How ev er , pursuantto that or der , Pe ter E. Pr att, Jr ., the a ppoi nted re cei v er , fil ed an appl ic ati on to se ll Ll anes' s real proper ty, wh ich w as loc ated in W har

to n C o u n ty, and a not ic e of the hear ing on t he appl ic ati on. The coun ty court he ld a hea ring on th e receiver's app lication a nd signed an orde r aut horizi ng Pratt 's forced sale of Llan es's real prop erty. Llan es did no t app eal f rom th e cou nty court's orders. Pr att sol d the proper

ty to Beng e for th e s um of $84,400 and di str ibu ted t he proceed s o f the sale to judgmen t creditors. 1 On March 3, 2 005 , Llan es f iled his origi nal pe ti t io n f or trespa ss to try title against Beng e i n the 329t h Dist ric t C our t of W har

ton C ounty

( dis tr ic t c our

t) cl aimi ng thatthe tur nov er order w as v oid bec ause the p ro per ty so ld to Beng e w as his homes tead. After3

fili ng a g ener al deni al, Beng e filed a tr adi ti onal moti on for summar y jud g ment. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66a( c)

. In hi s mot ion , Be ng e arg ued that he w as enti tl ed to su mmary j udg ment becau se he neg ated an ele ment of Ll anes' s tr espas s to tr y ti tl e s uit

. He further

arg ued t hat he w as enti tl ed to su mmary j udg ment und er

the doct ri nes of re s ju dic ata a nd c oll ateral est oppel

. The tr ial cour t g ra nted Beng e's moti on w it hout spec ify ing the g ro unds. Ll anes appeal s fr om the dis tr ic t c our t' s g ra nt of s ummary

j udg ment i n fav or

of Beng e. II. S TA NDA RD OF R E V I E W A ND A PPLI C A B LE L AW W e r ev iew

the tr ial co urt' s g ra nt of a motion for s ummary j udg ment on tr adi ti onal g ro unds de nov o. Or

tega v. Nat 'l

Bank , 97 S.W .3d 7 65, 7 71 (Tex . Ap p.— Cor pus Chr is ti 200 3, no pet. ) ( op. on reh'g). T he issue on appe al is w het her the mo v ant me t the summ ary jud g ment burden byestabl is hin g that no is sue of mater ial f actex is ts and t hat t he mov ant is enti tl ed to j udg ment as a matter of law

. Sw. Elec. Power C o. v . G ra nt , 73 S.W .3d 2 11, 2 1 5 (T e x. 20 0 2 ) (ci ti n g T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166 a(c)). A defendant w ho conc lus iv ely neg ates at lea st one es sent ial el ement of a c ause of action or af

f irmatively

estab lishes ea ch elem ent of an af f irmative d ef ense t o each claim is enti tl ed to su mm a ry j udg ment on that cl aim. Id. ; Or tega , 97 S.W .3d a t 772

. Onc e the defendant produce s s uff ic ien t ev ide nce to es tabl is h t h e r igh t t o s ummary j udg ment, the bur den s hifts to the p lai nti ff to ra ise a n i ss u e of

mater ial fact w it h r eg ard to the e lement chall eng ed by

the defendant. Cen teq R ealty Inc . v . Si egler , 899 S.W .2d 195 , 197 (T e x. 1995) ; Cl

a re n don Nat'

l Ins . C o. v

. T hom pson, 1 9 9 S

. W

. 3 d 4 8 2 , 4 8 6 -4 8 7 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 6, no pet. ); Rodrigu ez v. Klein , 9 6 0 S

. W

. 2 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 2 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1997, no p et.)

. W hen t her e are mul ti ple g ro unds for s ummary j udg ment and the or der does not specif y the ground on w hich th e sum ma ry judgmen t w as granted , as he re, app ellant must4

neg ate a ll grounds on appeal

. See C olu m bia R io Gr ande R egi

onal Hosp. v. Sto ver

, 17 S. W .3 d 38 7 , 3 9 2 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 2 0 0 0 , no pe t. ) (ci ti n g Sta te FarmFir e & Cas. Co. v. S. S. , 858 S.W .2d 374, 381 (Tex

. 1993) ). W e mustuphol d the su mmary j udg ment if the appel lan t fail s t o neg ate e ach g ro und upo n w hic h the tr ial co urt may hav e r ender ed the j udg ment. See i

d. III . S UP E RI OR T I TLE By his f irst issue, Llan es cont end s that the sum ma ry judgmen t is erroneou s beca use the p ro per

ty so ld to B eng e wa s his homes tead. I n hi s respon se to B eng e's moti on for
summar y j udg ment, Lla nes cl aimed that "h e h a s conti nuous ly r esi ded atand condu cte d his bus ine ss from the 4 par cel s of l and loc ated in W har ton Cou nty , Tex as, w hic h ar e the basi s o f [tr espas s t o tr

y ti tl e l aw sui t] for a per iod of some 1 3 y ears." Al thoug h the co urts hav e g iv en a li ber al cons tr uct ion to the c onst it uti on and sta tutes to protec t homes tead ri g hts , i t is cl ear that the court s cannotprotec t proper ty thati s n ot a homest ead. S a n c h ez

v. T elles , 960 S.W .2d 762 , 769 (Tex. App. –El Pa so 19 97, w rit deni ed)

. The par

ty cl aimi ng the homest ead ex empti on has the burden of es tabl is hin g the homest ead c har act er

of the p ro per

ty

. Id. ; NC NBT

exas Nat' l Bank v. C ar penter , 849 S.W .2d 8 75, 8 79 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 19 93, n o w ri t) . The part y cl aimi ng a ho mestea d must show a combi nati on of bo th ov ert act s of homestead us ag e and the i ntent ion on t he par t of the ow ner

to cl aim the l and as a ho mestea d. Sanc hez , 960 S.W .2d a t 770

. Here, Ll anes filed suitagai nstBenge in the distr ic t cour t for tres pass to tr

y ti tl e after Ben ge purchase d the prop erty f rom the receiver. A trespa ss to try title suit is a procedu re by w hic h c lai ms t o ti tl e or the ri g ht of

posses si on may

be a dju dic ated. Rog er s v . Ric ane5

Ent ers., Inc. , 884 S.W .2d 763, 769 (Tex

. 1994)

. To re cov er in a tr espas s to tr y ti tl e ac ti on, the p lai nti ff

mustr ecov er

upon the s tr eng th of hi s o w n ti tl e. Id. In hi s motion f or

summary

judg ment, Beng e c lai med thathe n eg ated an es sent ial ele ment of Ll anes' s c lai m. B eng e prov ide d summary judg ment ev ide nce est abl is hin g that he ac q uired ti tl e to the prop erty bypurch asi ng it for

good and v alu abl e c onsi der ati on from a du ly app ointe d receiver w ho w as grant ed the autho rity to sell the pro perty by

court orde r. Onc e Beng e es tabl is hed hi s r ig ht t o s u mmary j udg ment on the b asi s t hat h e had proper ti tl e to the p ro per

ty , t he burden s hifted to t he Ll anes to ra ise a n i ss u e of mater ial fact. Cente q Realty In c. , 899 S.W .2d a t 197 ; Cl ar endon N at' l Ins . C o. , 199 S.W .3d a t 486 -8 7; Rod ri guez , 960 S.W .2d at 182 . Llan es w as the refore r e qu ir e d to provide sum ma ry jud g ment ev ide nce ra is ing an is sue of mater ial f actthat the proper ty w as his homes tead. Al thoug h Ll anes cont ends that the p ro per ty i s h is homes tead, he p o in ts to no
ev ide nce in the record, an d w e find none, that est abl is hes any ov ert ac ts o f

homes tead usag e by

Ll anes or

hi s i ntent ion to cl aim the l a n d a s h is homes tead. See Koste lnik v. Rob er ts , 680 S.W .2d 5 32, 5 36 ( Tex . A p p
. – C o rp us Chr is ti 1984, w ri t ref'd n.r .e.) ( conc lud ing
ev i d e n c e t h a t a p p e l l a n t s l i v e d o n t h e r e a l p r o p e rt y o n w h i c h t h e y b u i l t a n e w home w as insuf f icient to supp ort a f inding tha t the prop erty w as the ir home stea d). In fact, L lane s did not a ttac h any

ev ide nce to hi s respon se to B eng e's moti on for summary

judg ment. Bas ed
on our r ev iew of the record, w e c oncl ude t hat L lan es has not rais ed an i ss ue of mater ial fact th at th e prop erty sold to Benge w as his hom este ad. T here fore, we ov errule Llan es's firs t i ss ue. IV. Collatera l Estoppel and Res J udicata Ben ge also relied on th e do ctrines of collateral est opp el and res judicat a to est ablish his enti tl ement t o s ummary j udg ment.6

By hi s s econd i ss ue, L lan es arg ues onl y that Beng e did not establ is h he w as enti tl ed to s ummary

j udg ment und er

the doct ri ne of col lat er al est oppel

. Lla nes appears t o chal len g e the first ele ment of co ll ateral est oppel arg uin g that the is sue of homestead w as
n o t ac tual ly

l it ig ated in the p re v iou s t ur nov er proceed ing s. Se e Sy

s c o F oo d Se r v s ., Inc. v. Trapne ll , 890 S.W .2d 7 96, 8 01 ( Tex . 199 4) (pr o vidi n g the ele ments of col lat er al est o p p e l). L la n es does not c ontend Beng e di d notes tabl is h the el ements of his r es jud ic ata d efense. T h e re fore, summar y j udg ment may

be a ff ir med on t he bas is of re s jud ic ata. See Holl

oway v . St ar nes , 840 S.W .2d 14, 23 (Tex. App. –Dallas 19 92, w rit den ied). Non ethel ess , ev en if w e w er e to cons tr ue Llanes 's second is sue as a chall eng e to Beng e's r es jud ic ata d efense, L lan es faile d to est abl is h tha t res jud ic ata w as not a proper g ro und for summar

y j udg ment. The el ements of re s j udi cat a incl ude: (1) a pri or and final jud g ment on the mer it s b y a court of competentj ur is dic ti on; ( 2) i denti ty of the p arti es or tho se in priv ity

w ith the m; and (3) a second action ba s e d o n t h e sa me claims as w ere
ra is ed or coul d hav e been ra is ed in the first act ion

. See i d. Res j udica ta ap plies "'n ot on ly on matt ers a ctu all y

l it ig ated, but als o on ca uses of act ion or defenses w hic h ar is e outof the s ame su bje ct matter and w hic h mi g ht ha v e been li ti g a te d i n t h e first sui t.' " Barr v. Res olu ti on T ru st Cor p. , 8 3 7 S. W

. 2 d 62 7 , 6 3 0 (T e x. 19 9 2 ) (qu o ti n g Tex as W ater R igh ts Com m . v. Crow Iron W orks , 582 S.W .2d 768 , 771 -72 (Te x . 197 9) ( e mp hasis om itted )); Colum bia R io Gr

ande R egi

onal Hosp. , 17 S.W .3d a t 392. Thus, re s j udi cat a i s n ot l imi ted to mat ters a ctu all y

l it iga te d i n a p ri or

su it ; i t al so pr ecl udes caus es of acti on or defenses that ar is e outof the same subj ectmatte r and w hic h mi g ht ha v e been li ti g ated in the p ri or sui t. Id. at 630.W e al so no t e t hat Ll anes has n ot chal l enged t he f i r st and secon d el em ent s of r es j udi cat a. 2 7 Lla nes cont ends that Beng e di d not e st a b lis h tha t t he i ss ue of homest ead w as act ual ly l it ig ated in the c ounty

co urt proc eedi ng
. Lla nes, how ev er , does not chal len g e the 2
sum ma ry

judgmen t on th e ba sis that Be nge did no t esta blish tha t the subject mat ter m igh t hav e been li ti g ated in the p ri or su it

. See Barr

, 837 S.W .2d at 630

. Llan es ha s theref ore faile d to show

thatBeng e di d notes tabl is h his re s judi cat a def ense. Becaus e Ll anes has not negate d res ju dicata as a groun d for sum ma ry judgmen t, w e mu st uph old th e sum ma ry jud g ment on that basi s. See C olu m bia R io Gr ande R egi

onal Hosp. , 17 S.W .3d a t 392 ; see als o Holl oway , 840 S.W .2d a t 23 (p rovidi ng thati f summary j udg ment may

hav e been
re nd e r e d , p r o p e r l y

o r i mp r o p e r l y , o n a g r o u n d n o tc h a l l e n g e d o n a p p e a l , t h e j u d g me nt must be affirmed)

. W e ov er ru le Lla nes' s s econd i ss ue. V. N OT I CE By his third issue, Llane s comp lains tha t the trial court erred i n grant ing summ ary judgme nt be cause he w as no t provided prop er not ic e o f the he aring on the receiv er's appl ic ati on to se ll hi s real proper ty i n the tur nove r proceed ing s i n the co unty co urt. Spec ific all y , Ll anes arg ues that "[a] thoroug h revi ew of the record s how s t hat [ he] n ev er
re cei v ed ac tual noti ce of the s o- cal led hear ing on the recei v er 's appl ic ati on to se ll r eal pr oper ty and noti ce of heari ng i n ti me to hav e been pr e se n t at the hear ing ." Ass uming
w it hout deci din g thatLl anes has show n tha t he did not re ce ive not ic e of the hear ing grant ing the receiver aut hority to sell his real prop erty, w e are no t persua ded byhis
arg ument be caus e Ll anes has ci ted n o aut hor it y and we f in d none that suppo rt s t he p ro p o sit io n th a t n o ti ce is re qui re d in a t u rn o ver p ro ce e d in g.8

The coun ty

co urt' s o rd er

g ra nti ng the re cei v er 's appli cat ion to sel l re al proper ty w as
re nder ed pursuant to sec ti on 31. 002 of the ci v il pr act ic es and remedie s c ode. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 31.002( a) (1 ), ( 2) , ( b)(3 ). Se ction 31.002 prov ide s t hat a judgme nt credito r is ent itled to aid f rom a court of app ropriate jurisdiction in orde r to reach
nonex empt proper

ty to obtai n s ati sfacti on on the j udg ment, and t he c our t may "appoi nt a
re cei v er w it h the authori ty

to tak e pos ses si on of the nonex empt proper ty , s ell i t, and pay the p ro ceeds to the judg ment cr edi tor to the e x tent re q uired to sa ti sfythe jud g ment." See id. The coun ty

co urt' s d efa u lt j udg ment s peci fical ly r eci ted t hat L lan es w as prov ide d pr oper noti ce, and Lla nes does not c omplai n tha t he di d n o t recei v e not ic e of that judgme nt. Beca use the ju dgme nt w as subje ct to collection , not ice tha t the creditor w ould attemptto col lec t on the jud g ment can be i mpli ed. See T hom as v. Thom as , 917 S.W .2d 425 , 433 -34 (Te x . App .–W aco 1 996 , no wr it ) (" Sect ion 31 .00 2 provides a reme dy w hich all ow s t he tr ial co urt t o enforc e a p rio r or der thathas been re fused or di sobey ed. The jud g ment ag ain st [appel lan t] w as subj ectto col lec ti on, and not ic e c an be impl ied thatthe credito r w ould atte mp t to collect on th e judgme nt." ). Section 3 1.0 02 requires neith er notice
nor a he ar ing before the c our t i ss ues a tur nov er

order

. See Ex Parte Johnso n , 564 S.W .2d 415, 418 ( Tex . 198 3) ( sta ti ng thatnoti ce and hea ri ng pr ior to is suanc e of t he tur nov er order is not re q uired) ; Si vley v. Si vley , 972 S.W .2d 8 50, 8 60 ( Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 1998, no p et.) ("The sta tute it sel f doe s not pr ov ide for noti ce or a hear ing to be aff or ded a judgment debtor i n a t ur nov er

proceed ing .") ; Pl

az a C ou rt v. W

est , 8 7 9 S

. W

. 2 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 6 (T e x. App.–H oust on [14 th D is t.] 1994, no w ri t.) ( ex pla ini ng thatse cti on 31. 002 [ the t ur nov er sta tute] does not prov id e f or noti ce to be affor ded a jud g ment deb tor i n a t ur nov er pr oceed ing ); see also End icott Johnso n Corp. v. Encyclo pedia Press, In c. , 266 U .S. 285,9

288 ( 1924) ( "The est abl is hed r ule s o f our syst e m of jur is pr udenc e do not req uire tha t a defendant w ho has been g ra nted an oppo rt uni ty to be heard and has had his day i n c our t, shoul d, after

a j udg ment has been re nder ed agai nsthim, hav e a fur ther noti ce and hea ri ng before s uppl emental proceed ing s a re tak en to r each his pro p e rt y in s ati sfacti on of the judgme nt." ). Beca use Llane s had not ice of the def ault judgmen t, an d be cause no no tice is r eq uired i n a subs eq uent tur nov er proce edi ng , w e cannot conc lud e, in thi s cas e, that t he dis tr ic t c our

t er re d i n g ra nti ng su mmary j udg ment. W e ov er ru le Lla nes' s t hird i ss ue. VI. Pr ocee ds fr om t he Sale By his fourth issu e, Llan es ap pea rs to argue that he raised an issue o f mat erial fact becau se he di d not re cei v e any of t he proceed s o f the forc ed s ale of his proper ty

. Lla nes has not p ro v ide d a c lea r and c onci se arg ument w it h ci tati ons to au thor it y and the record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8.1( i)

. Therefor e, he has w aiv ed th is arg ument. Id. W e overrule Lla nes' s four

th i ss ue. The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.
NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 9th d ay

of Janua ry , 200 9.