### NUM BER 13-06- 0051 5-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
SOU TH ERN ST ONE PR OPER TIES , INC ., A pp ellan t,
v. R OB ER T A . T OR R ES , S R . D /B /A BOB T ORR ES P ROP ERT IES, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 57t h Dist rict C ou rt o f C amero n Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s App ellant , Sou the rn Sto ne Properties, Inc. (“ Sou the rn Sto ne Pro pertie s”), appe als from a jud g ment notw it hst andi ng the v er dic t i n f a v or of Rob ert A. Torres, Sr . d/ b/a B ob Tor r es P r op er

ti es ( “ Tor r es ” ) , ap pe l l ee
. W e affi r m.

I. B A CKGRO UND Southe rn Sto ne Proper ti es si g ned a commer ci al r eal estate li sti ng agreement w it h Torr es in June 2002. The ter m of the a g re ement w as from Aug ust2, 2002 t o F ebr uar y 2,2

2004. The agree m e n t ca lle d for a s ix per centbroker ’s fee and a li sti ng sa les pr ic e of $3,250, 000. T h e ag re ement w as si g ned by R afaela S auced a, as a repr esent ati v e of South er n St one Proper ti es, Inc ., and El iz abeth Ver a, as the ag ent for Bob Torres Proper ti es. The ag re ement ha d n o lang uag e as to ter minat ion ; how ev er , i t prov ide d for
ex cl usi v it y , s tati ng , “ Sel ler ag re es to . . . not enter int o a l is ti ng ag re ement for the sal e or exchange of the prop erty w ith ano the r broke r to becom e ef fective during the term of this Lis ti ng .” The c ontract sta ted the b ro ker ’s fee w as pay abl e upon the s ell er ’s br each of the listing agreem ent . Th e co ntract also state d tha t all notices b etween pa rties und er this li sti ng mustbe in w ri ti ng and w oul d be eff ect iv e w hen han d- del iv er ed, mai led , or se nt by ele ctroni c t ra nsmi ss ion

. In D ecember

2002, Sout her n St one Proper ti es sent , v ia fasci mil e, a let ter to Torres ter minat ing the li sti ng ag re ement. The cor re spond ence w as si g ned by Sauc eda. Itw as not s ig ned by

any one from Bob Torre s Proper ti es. I n Apr il 2003, Sout her n St one Proper ti es entered i nto a nother co mmerc ial real es tate ag re ement w it h a d ifferent ag ent. T he property sold i n Februa ry 200 5. T orres f iled suit alleging brea ch of cont ract. A ju ry tr ial w as hel d, an d the j ur y found thatSout her n St one Pro p e rtie s d id not b re ach the ag re ement. Torr es filed a moti on for jud g ment notw it hst andi ng the v er dic t, w hic h the tr ial
cour t g ra n te d

. T he tr ial co urt ent er ed a jud g ment i n fav or of Torres for th e amountof $195,00 0 and aw ar ded at tor ney s’ fees i n the amount of $50,000. By i ts sol e i ss ue, S outher n St one Prop e rtie s a rg ues that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s di s c re t io n b y disregarding the jury v erdict an d en tering a judgmen t in favor of T orres. To r r e s a r g u e s t h a tt h e a p p e a l s h o u l d b e d i s mi s s e d b e c a u s e S o u t h e r n S t o n e P r o p e rt ies forfeited it s c or por ate c har ter and becau se the n oti ce of appeal i s d efecti v e.I n i t s “ M ot i on t o Di sm i ss t he Appeal f or Lack o f C or por at e Aut hor i t y and Fai l ur e t o Pr osecut e, ” T or r es 1 al so ar gues f or di sm i ssal on f ai l ur e t o pr osecut e gr ounds, speci f i cal l y asser t i ng t hat Sout her n St one Pr o p e r t i es fa i l e d to p ro s e c u te th i s a p p e a l b y n o t ti m e l y fi l i n g th e c l e rk ’ s re c o rd

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37. 3, 42. 3. T or r es cont ends, “ [ t ] he cl er k ’ s r ecor d i n t hi s case was or i gi nal l y due on O c t ob er 2, 200 6 .

. . . [ Sout her n St one P rop ert i es ] was gi v en t en d ay s f r om t he r ecei pt of not i ce t o cur e t he d ef ect and has f ai l ed t o do so. ” T he not i ce con t ai ned i n t he r ecor d i n t hi s C our t i ndi cat es t hat , on O ct ober 18, 2006, S out her n S t one Pr oper t i es w a s n o tif ie d th a t it h a d u n til O c to b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 t o f ile th e c le r k ’s r e c o r d . T h e c le r k ’s r e c o r d w a s f ile d w ith th is C our t on O ct ober 30, 200 6. W e de ny T or r es’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ss on g r ounds ofSout her n St one Pr oper t i es’ f ai l ur e t o pr osecut e. 3 II. D IS M IS S AL A
. Fo rf

eit ure o f th e C or po rat e C har te r W e f irst address T or re s ’s r equests to dismiss this ap pea l. In both its brief before thi s C our

t and i n its “ Mo ti o n t o D is mis s t he App eal for L ack of Cor por ate A uthor it y and Fai lure to Prosec ute,” w hic h w as car ri ed w it h thi s appeal , Torres arg ues th a t s e ct io ns 1 171.252 and 171.253 of the Tex as TaxC ode c all for a di smi ss al of the c ase. See T EX
. T AX C OD E A NN
. §§ 171.252 -. 253 (V er non 2008)

. These sec ti ons prov ide that, if a c or por ati on does not p ay

i ts cor por ate fr anchi se tax es, i ts cor por ate p ri v il eg es ar e forfeit ed, a nd th e
cor por ati on i s d eni ed th e r ig ht t o s ue or defend in a cour

t of this state. See T EX
. T A X C ODE A NN
. §§ 171.252 -. 253

. The ju dg ment w as si g ned on Aug ust2, 2006. No moti on to di smi ss w as filed i n the tr ial co urt bas ed upon Southe rn Stone Proper ti es’ forfeiture of i ts cor por ate pr iv il eg es. O n Oct ober 27, 2006, Torr es filed w it h thi s C our t a Mo ti on to D is mis s t he App eal and prov ide d the C our t w it h a c erti fied c opy

of the Tex as Secretar

y of Stat e’s or der

demons tr ati ng that Southe rn Sto ne Proper ti es forfeited it s cor por ate c har ter on F ebr uar

y 10, 2006. Torres
arg ues that the for

feitur e is g ro unds for the dis mis sal , but notes thatthere i s n o c asel aw supp orting this argume nt. In reality , the caselaw states tha t it is not g roun ds for dismissa l. The Tex as Supr eme C our t has hel d tha t a cor por ati on has the same r ig ht as ind iv idu als to hav e a j udgm e n t ag ain st itr ev iew ed by the appel lat e c our

ts and t hat e v enI n i t s “ M ot i on t o Di sm i ss t he Appeal fo r Lack ofC or por at e A ut hor i t y and Fai l ur e t o Pr osecut e, ” T or r es 2 al so ar gues t hat we l ack j ur i sdi ct i on t o he ar t hi s app eal beca use Sout her n St one Pr oper t i es, havi ng f or f ei t ed i t s cor por at e char t er bef or e f i l i ng i t not i ce of appea l , coul d not pr oper l y f i l e a no t i ce of app eal

. Havi ng a l r eady deci ded t hat Sout her n St one Pr oper t i es m ay pur sue t hi s app eal i n spi t e of t he f or f ei t ur e of i t s char t er , we de ny T or r es’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ss on l ack ofj ur i sdi ct i on g r ounds. 4 exti ng uis hed cor por ati ons ar e enti tl ed to a he ar ing before the a ppel lat e c our ts. Vans cot Con cr ete C o. v . Ba iley , 853 S.W .2d 5 25, 5 26- 27 ( Tex . 199 3) ( per cu ri am). A cor por ati on that has ceas ed to ex is t c an nev erthel ess appeal a t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment ag ain st it

. Cruse
v. O’Qui nn , 273 S.W .3d 7 66, 7 70- 71 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2008, pet. deni ed) (p er mitt ing a c or por ati on to appeal an adv erse jud g ment, w hen t he appe al arose after it s
c o r p o r a t e c h a rt e r w a s fo r fe i t e d a n d t h e a p p e l l a n tw a s n o ts e e k i n g a f f i r m a t i v e r e l i e f )

. W e
w il l not d is mis s t he appe al based on the for feiture of Sout her n St one Proper ti es’ co rp or ate charte r. B. Def

ect iv e N ot ice o f A pp eal 2 Torr es als o arg ues that w e s hou ld di smi ss bec ause the n oti ce of appeal di d not sta te the cour

t to w hic h the appeal w oul d be tak en. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25. 1(b), (d)(4). A court of app eals ha s jurisdiction over an app eal w hen the ap pellan t f iles a n instrum ent that is a bona- fide attempt to inv oke appel lat e c our t j ur is dic ti on. City of S an Antoni o v . R odr igu ez , 828 S. W .2d 4 17, 4 18 ( Tex . 199 2) ( per cu ri am). T he T exas Suprem e Court ha s reaf f irmed the po licy

that t he decision s o f

the cou rt shoul d turn on subst ance ra ther than procedu ra l tec hni cal it y . Cr own Lif e Ins . C o. v

. Es tate of G onzale z , 820 S.W .2d 121, 121 (Tex

. 1991) (p er cur iam)

. Beca use Torres has faile d to es tabl is h tha t he w as dis adv antag ed by Sout her n St one Proper ti es’ er ro r, the appeal shoul d notbe d efeated on a tec hni cal constr uct ion of the r ule s. Motor Veh icle Bd. of Tex. Dep’ t of Tra n s

p
. v . El Paso Inde p. Au to Dea lers A s s ’n , 1 S.W .3d 108 , 112 (Tex. 1994 ). This C our

t has j ur is dic ti on ov er

the appeal i n s pit e of South er n Stone Proper ti es’ f ail ur e to5

desi g nate the cour

t t o w h ich t h e a p p eal tak en. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.1( b) ; see a lso Prope s v. Dallas Casa HousingCtr. , N o. 05 -0 0- 01101- CV , 200 0 W L 1285609, at*1 n.1 (Tex . App.–D all as Sept. 13, 2000, no pet .)

. W e hol d tha t t he C our t has j ur is dic ti on ov er the app eal, a nd we decline to dismiss. III
. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW Southe rn Sto ne Proper ti es arg ues that the t rial c our t abu sed it s d is creti on by dis re g ar din g a j ur

y v er dic t and enteri ng a jud g ment notw it hst andi ng the v er dic t. W e r ev iew a J NO V under a leg al- suffici ency standard, v iew ing the ev ide nce and i nferenc es in the l ig ht
mo s tfa v o r a b l e t o t h e j ury 's f ind ing

. City of K eller v. Wils on , 1 6 8 S

. W

. 3 d 8 0 2 , 8 2 3 (T e x. 200 5) (stating that “the tes t for legal suf f iciency shou ld be th e sam e for sum ma ry jud g ments, di rected v er dic ts, j udg ments notw it hst andi ng the v er dic t, and app ell ate
no- e v i d e n c e r e v i e w ” )

. W e w i l l s u s t a i n t h e g r a n t i n g o f a J N O V b a s e d o n “ n o ev ide nce”
w hen the reco rd shows: ( 1) a com plete lack of ev iden ce of

a v ital fact; (2) the trial court is bar re d by

the ru les of law

or ev ide nce from g iv ing w e ight to the onl y ev ide nce off er ed to pr ov e a v it al fact; ( 3) the ev ide nce off er ed to prov e a v it al fact i s n ot more tha n a s ci nti ll a;
or ( 4) the ev ide nce est abl is hes conc lus iv ely the op p o sit e o f

a v it al fact. Id. at 81 0 ( ci ti ng Rob ert W . C alv ert, “No Ev ide nce” & “ Ins uffici ent Evi dence ” Poi

nts of E rr or , 38 T EX
. L. R EV
. 361, 362- 63 ( 1960) ); Tiller v. McLure , 121 S.W .3d 709 , 713 (Tex. 2003 ) ( hold ing tri al court mayg ra nt J NO V i f ther e i s n o ev ide nce to s uppor t j ur y ’s f in d in g on i ss ue nec ess ar y to li abi li ty ). IV. A N AL Y S IS Sou th er n St on e Prop er ti es a rg ue s t ha t th e tr i al c ou rt er r ed b y g r an ti ng To r r es’s JN OV, ass erti ng that it proper ly ter minat ed the cont ra ct w hen i t fax ed th e ter minat ion l etter to Tor re s. Torres arg ues that the ter minat ion l etter , w it hout more, w as ins uff ic ien t t o6

ter minat e the co ntractas a mat ter of law ; t her efore, the c ontra ct was sti ll i n forc e w hen Sou the rn Ston e Prop erties hired a third party to sell the prop erty. W e agree w ith T orres. A c ontractprov idi ng a c ommis si on for the s ale of re al proper ty mustbe i n w ri ti ng to sat is fy the sta tute of fra uds; other w is e, the cont ra ct is unenforc eabl e. T EX
. O CC
. C ODE
A NN
. § 11 01. 806 (c) (Verno n 20 04) (stati ng that to main tain a n actio n to reco v er a
com mission for the sa le of real estat e, th e agreem ent upo n w hich the a ction is based must be i n w ri ti ng and si g ned bythe par ty to be c harg ed) ; see als o Lat hemv. Kr

use, No. 05- 08- 00 39 4- C V, 20 09 W L 18 87 13 1, at * 2- 3 ( Tex

. Ap p. –D al l as J ul y 2, 20 09 , no pet. h.). Addi ti onal ly , t he modi ficat ion or ter minat ion of suc h a c ontractmustal so be i n w ri ti ng
. See Colum bia H CA of Hou st o n , In c. v. T ea C ake Fr

ench Bake ry

& T ea R oom , 8 S.W .3d 1 8, 2 1 ( Te x . A p p
. – H o u sto n [14th D i s t

. ] 1 9 9 9 , p e t

. d e n i e d ) ( h o l d i n g t h a tt h e t e r mi n a t i o n o f a le a se of r e a l e st a te m u stbe in w rit in g) (cit in g Gi vens v. D ougher

ty , 671 S.W .2d 8 77, 8 78 (Tex . 198 4) ; Er

tel v. O' Br ien , 852 S.W .2d 17, 22 (Tex. App. –W aco 1 993 , w rit denied ); Ker rv il le HR H, Inc . v

. Cit y o f Ke rr vi lle, 803 S.W .2d 3 77, 3 89 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Antonio 1990,
w rit de nied ); Vel

a v . Pe nnzoil

Pr oduci ng C o. , 723 S.W .2d 1 99, 2 06 ( Tex . –A pp.- San Ant onio 198 6, w rit ref 'd n.r.e .)). T he listing agreem ent w as in w riting a n d signed. T he let ter faxed f rom So uth ern Stone Pr o p erti es to Tor re s t er minat ing the ag re ement w as not s ig ned by Torres, ev en thoug h i t had a s ig nature l ine for Tor re s. T her e is no ev ide nce that Torres ev er si g ned any ag re ement t er minat ing the cont ra ct. Beca use Torr es did not si g n the l etter , i t di d notag re e to the t er minat ion

. Thus, the ag re ement w as not ter minat ed in Dec ember 2002, as arg ued by Southe rn Stone P ro p e rt ie s
. In fa c t , t h e a gr e e m e n twa s st il l i n f o rc e i n A p ri l 2 0 0 3 wh e n , a c c o rd in g t o it s o wn adm ission, So uth ern Sto ne Pro pertie s hired anoth er agent to sell the prop erty. Beca use7

the agreeme nt be tw een Sout hern Ston e Prop erties an d T orres w as to rema in in ef fect un til Febr uar y 2004, and Southe rn Sto ne Proper ti es b re a ch e d the ex cl usi v it y cl ause of the cont ra ct, w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial j udg e di d notco mmit er ro r by ente ri ng the JN OV. V. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

_________ _________

_________

___ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 28t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.