A pp el l an t ’ s w i fe, G era l di ne Lo ng , w as al s o a pl ai nti ff i n a pp el l an t ’ s su i t a ga i ns t a pp el l ee s
. H ow eve r, 1 a p p e l l a n t’ s a m e n d e d n o ti c e o f a p p e a l n a m e s o n l y h i m s e l f a s a n a p p e l l a n t. 

### NUM BER 13-06- 0043 1-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 OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
WIL LIA M L ONG , SR ., A pp ellan t,
v. BELINDA

RYA N, M A

TA GORDA

COUNTY AB S T RAC T AN D T I T L E C O M P AN YD / B /A SOU TH WES T LA ND T ITL E, JO HN C . D A VIS, STEVE N E. DA

VI S, PROGRES SI VE COM M ERCIA L A QUATICS, INC., A ND PROSPERI TY BA NK A ND D A NIEL H A

YES, A pp ellees . On ap pe al f rom th e 1 30t h Dist rict C ou rt o f Matago rda 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 Ya ñe z By fiv e i ss u e s, a p pel lan t, W il li am Long , Sr ., ac ti ng pro s e, c hal len g es the t ri al 1Appel l ant ’ s sui t was f i l ed a s t ri al c ou rt cause num ber 05- E- 0617- C , st y l ed W i lliam Lon g an d 2 G e r a ld in e L o n g v . J o h n C a r ro ll B o u d re a u x , e t a l. , i n t he 1 30t h Di st r i ct C our t of M at agor da Count y . Af t er t he t r i al cour t gr ant ed su m m ar y j udgm ent i n f av or of app el l ees, i t sev er ed t he cl ai m s aga i nst app el l ees i nt o cau se n u m b e r 0 5 -E -0 6 1 7 -C A

.

See Juhl

v. Air ingt on , 9 3 6 S .W .2 d 6 4 0 , 6 4 3 -4 4 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ). 3 T ria l c o u rt c a u s e n u m b e r T 1 4 ,4 9 0 , M a ta g o rd a C o u n ty , e t a l. v . W illia m F . A . L o n g , S r., e t a l. , i n t he 4 1 3 0 th D is tr ic t C o u r t o fM a ta g o r d a C o u n ty. 2 cour t’ s o rd ers gra nti ng su mmary j udg ment i n fav or

of appel lee s, Ma tag orda C ounty Abst ra ct and Titl e C ompany d/b/ a Sout hw est

Land Titl e ( “S outhw est ”) , Prosper ity Bank (“ the B ank” ), Prog re ss iv e C ommerc ial Aq uati c s , I n c
. ( “ P ro g re s s i v e” ), Jo hn C . D av is , St ev en E. D av is , Be li nda R y an, a nd D ani el E. H ay es. W e aff ir m. I. Background On Octo ber 25 , 200 5, ap pellan t sued num erou s defend ant s, includ in g app ellees, cl aimi ng ti tl e to cer

tai n proper

ty l ocat ed i n M atag orda C ounty

. Ap pel lan t’ s p eti ti on 2
ass erted c auses of act ion for c onspi ra cy , frau d, an d “ aid ing and abett ing .” The present 3
s ui t i s a t l ea s t th e th i rd proc ee di ng i n w hi c h ap pe l l an t ha s a s s er te d ow ne rs hi p of t he s am e proper ty bas ed on the s ame al leg ati ons of f ra ud. A p p e llant conten ds tha t he obta ined an interest i n the prop erty in April 1 9 9 5 b y a q uit cl aim deed si g ned by G. Edw ard Lear y , Commi ss ion er of the D epar tment of Fi nanci al Ins ti tuti ons for th e St ate o f Utah, i n pos ses si on of Sent ry Thri ft Cor porati on, a U tah
cor porati on. In Januar

y 2004, the tr ial courtrej ect ed appell ant’ s cl aim, qui eted titl e in fav or of the heirs of

Lillian Sawy er, and foun d tha t app ellanthad no inte rest in the prop erty. No 4 par ty appeal ed from t hat j udg ment. In S eptember

2003, appel lan t fil ed anot her su it , s uin g fiv e of the same de fendants that he s ued i n the present cas e, ass erti ng ow nershi p of t he same p ro per ty bas ed on theT ri al co urt ca us e n um be r 03-E -05 69 -C , i n t he 13 0th D i s t ri c t C ou rt of M atag ord a C ou nty

. W e h ave 5 to d a y d i s p o s e d o f th e a p p e a l i n th a t re l a te d c a u s e
. See W i lliam Long, Sr

. v. the Est at e of Li llian Sawyer

, et a l ., N o . 1 3 -0 6 -3 9 5 -C V , 2 0 0 9 T e x . A p p . L E X IS _ _ , a t *_

_ ( T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti S e p t. 2 4 th , 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t. h .). In s u p p o r t o fth is a s s e r tio n , a p p e lla n t c ite s th e a n s w e r o fd e f e n d a n t J e s s e J . M a yn a r d . M a yn a r d ’s

6 answer st at es t hat he was t he m aj or i t y st ockhol der ofS ent r y F i nance i n 1978, and w as t he o nl y off i cer of t he c o rp o r a tio n fro m th e ti m e th a t i t w a s p l a c e d i n re c e i v e rs h i p u n ti l i ts c h a rte r w a s c a n c e l e d i n 1 9 8 2

. D e s p i te appel l ant ’ s r epeat ed a sser t i ons t hat “co- def endan t ’ s [ si c] hav e con f essed t o t he m anuf act ur i ng o ft he f r audul ent docu m ent s” ( ci t i ng M ay nar d’ s answer ) , t he a nswer cont ai ns no conf essi on o fany wr ongdo i ng.

T he sel l er s of t he pr oper t y wer e El i z abet h C ar r i e C l ar k , Bel i nda R y an, C het M abr y , Ji m M abr y , and 7 Li l l i an Ande r son. 3 sam e allegation s of

f raud

. In that suit, the trial court struck app ellant ’s plea dings and held

5 tha t his claims w ere ba rred by the doctrine of res judicat a beca use the y h ad b een f inally deter mined in the 2 004 j udg ment. In t he presentca se, appel lan t makes the same clai ms that he made i n the prev iou s proceed ing s: thathe h as a v ali d qui tcl aim deed t o the proper ty , bas ed on his al leg ati ons that appel lee s defrauded him and the tr ial co urt by manufactur ing fraudul ent d ocument s re g ard in g titl e to the p ro per ty

. Spec ific all y , app ell ant a ll eg es that a 1978 q uit cl aim deed from Sent ry

Thri ft to Li ll ian Clar k w as is sued after Sentr y Thri ft w as li q uid ated. Ap pel lan t cont ends that the d oct ri ne of res jud ic ata i s i nappl ic abl e to the p re sentca se becau se he “could no t have raised the f raud in T 14, 490 ” becau se “the f raud did notbeco me such a fact unti l Apr il 25, 2006.” 6 Prog re ss iv e i s t he c ur re nt ow ner of the p ro per

ty

. The Bankhas a Dee d of T ru st li en on th e proper

ty g ra nted to i t by

Prog re ss iv e. Anothe r appel lee , So uthw est , han dle d the
re al est ate t ra nsac ti on betw een t he s ell ers o f the proper ty and Prog re ss iv e, the buy er . An 7 aff ida v it of F re d H. Law , manag er of S outhw est , sta tes that not lon g after the clo sin g, around S eptember

2004, appel lan t c ame to Southw est ’s off ic e c omp la ini ng of the transacti on and threateni ng to sue ev er y one i nv olv ed i n the transacti on.See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 16 6a (c). 8 Jo e v. Tw o Thi

rt y N ine J. V. , 1 4 5 S .W .3 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 6 -5 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ); Brant on v. W ood , 100 S. W

. 3d 9 6 4 5 , 6 4 6 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.).

V a l e n c e O p e ra tin g C o . v . D o rs e tt , 16 4 S

. W

. 3d 65 6, 66 1 (T ex
. 20 05 ). 10 4 E a c h a p p e ll e e f il e d a n a n s we r, a s s e rt in g va ri o u s d e fe n s e s , in c lu d in g t h e a f f ir m a t ive defenses of

r e s judic ata a nd c oll ateral est oppel

. Each appel lee al so filed a t ra dit ion al moti on for summar

y j udg ment, ass erti ng thatappel lan t’ s c lai ms are bar re d by res jud ic ata and col lat eral est oppel . In add it ion , So uthw est ’s moti on for summar y j udg ment as ser

ted tha t app ellanthad “no evi den ce” supp orting his claims of consp ira cy , f raud , trespa ss, neg li g ence, and aid ing and abett ing fraud. On J une 30, 200 6 , appell ant fil ed a tradi ti onal moti on for summar y j udg ment, assertin g tha t app ellees are notentitle d to th e af f irmative defense of

res judicata beca use “res jud ic ata may

not be i nv oked to s ust ain fraud. ” In sep arat e orders, the trial court g rante d the app ellees’ m otion s for sum ma ry jud g ment w it hout sta ti ng the g ro unds. Thereafter , the appel lee s filed se parate mot ion s for
sev erance, w hic h the tr ial co urt g ra nted on Apr il 6, 2007.

II. St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw Here, ap pel lan t and the appel lee s f il ed “tradi ti onal ” moti ons for summary j udg ment. 8 W e re v iew the tr ial cour t’ s g ra nt of s ummary jud g ment de nov o. W hen , a s h e re , both 9 par ti es mov e for summary j udg ment on the s ame i ss ues and t he tr ial co urt g ra nts one moti o n a n d deni es the o ther , t he rev iew ing co urt c onsi ders t he s ummary -j udg ment
ev ide nce present ed by both si des, deter mines all q uest ion s p re sent ed, a nd i f it deter mines the t ri al cour

t er re d, renders t he j udg ment t he tr ial co urt s houl d hav e rendered. 10 W hen the trial court do es no t specif y the ba sis fo r its rulin g, i tis the app ellant ’sC of f ey v. Singer

Asset Fin. C o. , 223 S

. W

. 3d 559, 562- 63 ( T ex. App. –D al l as 20 07, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng 11 St ar - Tel egr am , I nc. v. D oe , 9 1 5 S .W .2 d 4 7 1 , 4 7 3 (T e x . 1 9 9 5 ))

. Brow ning v. Prost ok , 165 S

. W

. 3d 336, 344 ( T ex. 200 5) ( ci t i ng P ro v i d e n t L ife In s . C o . v . Kn o tt , 128 12 S .W .3 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 6 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 )) ; C of f ey , 2 2 3 S .W .3 d a t 5 6 3

. S e e J o n e s v . N ig h tin g a le , 9 0 0 S

. W

. 2 d 8 7 , 8 8 ( Tex

. A p p
. – Sa n A n t o n i o 1 9 9 5 , w r i t r e f ’ d ) ( c i t i ng 13 W alker v. Shar pe , 8 0 7 S .W .2 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 7 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 1 9 9 1 , n o w rit ))

. Id

. 14 Id

. at 88- 89. 15 H al l co Tex. , I nc. v. McM ul l en Ct y. , 221 S. W

. 3d 50, 58 ( T ex. 200 7) ( ci t i ng G et t y O i l C o. v. I ns. C o. 16 o f N

. A m. , 845 S. W

. 2d 7 94, 799 ( T ex. 199 2) ( quot i ng Bar r v. R esol uti on Trust

C or p. , 837 S. W

. 2d 6 27, 631 (T ex
. 19 92 )) ). 5 burd en o n ap pea l to show tha t non e of the ind epe nde nt ground s thatw ere asse rted in suppo rtof summar

y j udg ment i s s uff ic ien t t o suppor t the judg ment. Thus, w hen t he tr ial 11
cour t’ s o rd er g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment doe s n ot s peci fy the g ro unds on w h ich it w as g ra nted, w e w il l aff ir m the summar y j udg ment i f anyof the adv anced theor ies suppo rtthe jud g ment. 12 Summary

j udg ment may

be o btai ned on a pl ea of res jud ic ata. A mov ant a ss erti ng 13 the d efense of res jud ic ata h as the b urden of present ing su ff ic ie n t e vidence, i ncl udi ng j ud g me nt s a nd p l ea di ng s from t he p r i or s ui t, t o es ta bl i sh th att he d efe ns e ap pl i es
. To 14 pr ev ail , t here f o re , the mov ant mus t produce su mmary j udg ment ev ide nce, i ncl udi ng
v er ified or

ce rt ified co pie s of the judg ment and pleadi ng s that est abl is h the appl ic abi li ty of the d oct ri ne. 15 The doct ri ne of res jud ic ata, or cl aim precl usi on, b ars a se cond act ion by par ti es and their p rivie s on matt ers a ctu all y l it ig ated in a prev iou s s uit , as w ell as cl aims “ ‘w hic h, throug h the ex er ci se of dil ig ence, co uld hav e been li tig ated in a pr ior su it .’ ” F or

res 16 jud ic ata t o appl y , t here mustbe: ( 1) a pr ior final j udg ment on th e m e rit s b y a cou rtofC i ti z ens I ns. C o. v. D accach , 21 7 S

. W

. 3d 43 0, 44 9 (T ex
. 20 07 ). 17 Id

. 18 St at e & C t

y. Mut

. Fire I ns. C o. v. Mill er , 52 S

. W

. 3d 69 3, 69 6 (T ex
. 20 01 ). 19 S e e i d

. 20 G re e n v . K a p o s ta , 1 5 2 S .W .3 d 8 3 9 , 8 4 1 (T e x . A p p .– D a l l a s 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.). 21 6 compet ent jur is dicti on; (2) identi ty of par ti es or thos e i n pr iv ity

w it h the m; and (3 ) a s econd action base d on the sam e claims th at w ere raised or could ha v e be en raised in the f irst act ion

. The do ctr ine se eks to br ing an e n d t o l it ig ati on, p re v ent v ex ati ous li ti g ati on,

17 mai nt ai n s ta bi l i ty of c ou rt de c i s i on s , prom ot e j ud i c i al ec on om y , an d prev ent dou ble
re c o ve ry. 18 “W hen as ser

ted a g ain st a par

ty w ho w as act ual lya pa rty i n the first act ion , t he doct rine of

collateral est opp el bar s r e li tigation of fact issue s thatw ere f ully and fairly litig ate d an d tha t w ere essen tial to the prior judgmen t.” Becau se ap pellan t w as actu ally 19 a par ty in T14,490, col lat eral est oppel w il l bar appel lan t’ s fact is sues as to t he appe ll ees in this case if

(1) the fact issue s und erly ing his claim s w ere f ully and fairly

litig ate d in T14,490, (2 ) thos e factual f in d in gs were es sent ial to the T14, 490 j udg ment, and ( 3) the is sues dec ide d i n T14,490 ar e i denti cal to thos e i n the pendi ng ac ti on. 20 “A pro se litig antis held t o t h e s am e stan dard s as licensed atto rneys and mu st compl y w it h appl ic abl e l aw s a nd r ule s o f proc edure.” 21 III . Discus sion W e beg in by

address ing eac h appel lee ’s moti on for summar y j u d g ment and suppo rt ing ev ide nce.See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 19 8.2(c). 22 7

A . Southw est’s Mot ion for Summary Judgment Southw est mov ed for summar y jud g ment on it s a ff ir mati v e defenses of re s j udi cat a, c o ll ate ral estop pel, lach es, est opp el, stat ute of limitation s, and no du ty. Sout hwest’s
summar y j udg ment ev iden ce consi ste d of the follo w ing : (1 ) a c erti fied c opy of the jud g ment i n T14, 4 90; ( 2) the aff ida v itof B. Al len Cumbi e, Southw est ’s co unsel , s tati ng that appel lan t recei v ed Southw est ’s req uestfor admiss ion s, but did not res pond, and t hat a s a re s u lt , t h e re qu e s tfo r a d m is s io n s is d e e m e d a d m it t e d ; (3 ) t h e a f f id a v i to f F r e d L a w, Southw est ’s manag er , s tati ng thatSout hw estcl osed the sal es transacti on betw een t he sel lers o f the proper

ty and Prog re ss iv e, and t hat S outhw esthad no duty to appel lan t as he
w as not i nv olv ed i n the clos in g; and ( 4) Sout hw est ’s req uestfor a dmis si ons to ap pel lan t tha t w ere no t respon ded to. Am ong oth er t hings, the ju dgme nt in T 14, 490 (1) awards title 22 to th e prop erty to “Eliz abe th Clark (50%), Belind a R ya n (12.5 %), Chet Mabry (12.5 %), L ill ia n An d e rso n (12 .5 %), an d Jim Mab ry (12 .5 %)” ; a n d ( 2 ) st a te s th a t “W ill ia m F

. A. Lo n g, Sr . i s d iv este d o f

a ll ti tl e” to the p ro per

ty

. W e c oncl ude t hat S outhw esthas es tabl is hed: (1 ) a pr ior

final j udg ment on the mer it s o f the ow nershi p of the proper ty i n T14,490; ( 2) app ellantw as a pa rty

in T1 4,4 90; and (3) appellan t’s claims in the presen t case were fina lly deter mined in T14,490. Ac cordin g ly , So uthw estes tabl is hed its aff ir mati v e defense of res judicat a, an d the trial court did noterr i n granting summ aryjudgmen t in its fa v or.

B. Progress iv e and the Bank’s Motion fo r Summary Judgment In t hei r moti on for summar y j udg ment, Prog re ss iv e an d t h e Bank as ser ted t he def ense s of

res judicata , collate ral estop pel, a nd th at th e p re sentsuit constitu tes a col lat eral attac k.Brow ning , 165 S. W

. 3d a t 345

. 23 Id

. at 346

. 24 Id

. 25 Id

. ( ci t i ng Aust in I ndep. Sch. D ist

. v. Si er r a Cl ub , 4 9 5 S .W .2 d 8 7 8 , 8 8 1 (T e x . 1 9 7 3 ))

. 26 8 Collatera l attacks on f inal judgme nts are gene rally disallow ed b ecau se it is t he p ol icy of the l aw

to g iv e f ina li ty

to the judg ments of the cour ts. A col lat eral attac k i s a n att empt 23 to av oid the bin din g force of a jud g ment in a proceed ing not ins ti tuted for t he pur pose of
cor re cti ng , modi fyi ng , or v acat ing the jud g ment, but i n order to obtai n s ome sp eci fic reli ef
w hic h the j udg ment c ur re ntl y st a n d s as a bar

ag ain st. O nly

a v oid j udg ment may

be 24 col lat erall y

att ack ed. A jud g ment is v oid only w hen it is apparentthat the cou rtrender ing 25 judgme nt “had n o jurisdiction of t he partie s o r pro perty, n o jurisdiction of t he subje ct ma tter, no j ur is dic ti on to ente r the p arti cul ar j udg ment, or

no c apaci ty

to act .” 26 In s uppor

t of t hei r moti on for summar y j udg ment, Prog re ss iv e and the B ank off ered the followi ng summ ary judgmen t evi den ce: (1) a co p y of the jud gmen t in T1 4,4 90; (2) a copy of “Cross-Plaint if

f ’s Orig ina l P e tition” in T 14, 490 , by w hich ap pellan t w as a crossdef end ant ; (3) appe llant’s an sw er to Cross-Plaintif f ’s p etition in T1 4,4 90; (4) the reporte r’s
re cord of the Janua ry 2004 tr ial in T14,490; (5 ) a copy of ap pel lan t’ s September 26, 2 002 ple a of g uil ty

to bank fraud i n federa l cour t; (6 ) a copy of t he jud g ment in the same b ank fraud c ase in federal co urt; (7 ) appel lan t’ s o ri g ina l peti ti on i n the presentca se; ( 8) the
re por ter ’s record of the Febr uar y 16, 2005 s anct ion s h ear ing i n tr ial cour t c ause number 03- E- 0569- C, i n the 130t h D is tr ic t C our t; (9 ) the o rd er

g ra nti ng the defendants’ moti on for
sanc ti ons in caus e number 03- E- 0569- C; (1 0) a c opy of the S eptember

2, 2004 w ar ra nty d e e d f ro m t h e se ll e rs (E li za b e t h Ca rr ie C l a rk , L il li a n A n d e rs o n , Ch e tMa b ry, Ji m Ma b ry,9

and Be li nda R y an) to Prog re ss iv e; and (1 1) a de ed of tr ustand sec ur ity ag re ement on the proper ty ex ecut ed by

Prog re ss iv e i n fav or

of the B ank. W e c oncl ude that Prog re ss iv e and the Bank est abl is hed (1 ) a pr ior final j udg ment on th e me rits of

the ownership of

the pro perty in T14 ,49 0; (2) app ella n tw as a pa rty in T14,490; and ( 3) appel lan t’ s cl aims in the p re sentca se w ere final ly dete rmi ned i n T14,490. Acc ordin g ly , Prog re ss iv e and the B ank est abl is hed t h e i r a ffi rmat iv e defense of res j udi cat a, and t he tr ial co ur

t di d noter r in g ra nti ng su mmary j udg ment i n the ir

fav or
. C. Daniel E. Hay es’ s Motion for Summary Judgment In hi s motion for

summary

judg ment, Hay es ass erted t he affirmat iv e defenses of re s jud ic ata a nd c oll ateral est oppel

. In suppor t, Hay es submi tted the follo w ing ev ide nce: ( 1) the f inal judgme nt in T 14, 490 ; (2) the Febru ary16, 20 05 o rder grant ing sanction s in cause number 03- E- 569- C; and (3 ) appel lan t’ s “M oti on for Judi ci al Rev iew of Doc umentati on and Ins tr uments thatPur por ted t o C re ate a Li en and a C lai m,” fil ed Ap ril 21, 2006 in y et another l aw sui t, tr ial co urt c ause number 06- H- 0246- C, i n w hic h he ag ain as ser ts that
cer tai n doc uments are “ fraudul ent.” H ay es’ s mot ion al so adopted and in co rp o rated by referen ce the mot ion for sum ma ry judgmen t f iled by Prog ressiv e an d the Bank. W e hav e al re ady

dete rmi ned t hat t he motion filed by Prog re ss iv e and the B ank esta blished the de fense of res judicata . Accordingly , w e ho ld tha t the trial court did noterr in grant ing summ aryjudgmen t in Hay es’s favor. D. M ot io n fo r S um mar y Ju dg men t of

Jo hn C . D av is an d St ev en E. D av is I n t h e ir m o t io n fo r s u m m a ry ju d gm e n t , t h e D a vis a p p e ll e e s a s s e rt e d t h e a f f ir m a t ive defenses of res j udi cat a and col lat eral est oppel

. Lik e Hay es, the Dav is appell ees adopted and i ncor porated by

referenc e the moti on for summar y j udg ment fil ed by

Prog re ss iv e andSee T EX
. P ROP
. C OD E A NN
. § 22. 003 ( Ver non 2000) ( “ A f i nal j udgm ent t hat est abl i shes t i t l e or r i ght 27 to p o s s e s s io n in a n a c tio n to r e c o v e r r e a l p r o p e r ty i s c o n c lu s iv e a g a in s t t h e p a r ty f r o m w h o m th e p r o p e r ty is r ecov er ed a nd a gai nst a per son cl ai m i ng t he pr oper t y t hr ough t hat par t y by a t i t l e t hat ar i ses aft er t he a ct i on i s i ni t i ated

. ”)

.

See U

. S. C ON ST
. a m e n d . V II; T EX
. C ON ST
. a rt. I , § 1 5 , V , § 1 0

. 28 See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( c) ( “ I ssues n ot ex pre s s l y pr esent ed t o t he t r i al cour t by wr i t t en m ot i on, 29 answer orot her r esponse shal l not be consi der ed o n appeal as gr ounds f or re v er sal

. ” )

. T he o nl y r esponse s b y a p p el l an t i n t he rec ord be fore us are (1) ap pe l l an t ’ s M oti on for S um m ary J ud gm en t an d R es po n s e to M o tio n s f o r S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t f ile d b y R ya n , P r o g r e s s iv e , a n d t h e B a n k ; a n d ( 2 ) h is r e s p o n s e t o t h e D a v is appel l ees’ M ot i on f or Sum m ar y Judgm ent

. N ei t her cont ai ns an y ar gum ent r egar di ng t he co nst i t ut i onal i t y of th e s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t p ro c e d u re
. 10 the Bank. Accordingly , w e con clude thatthe Davis a p p e llees ha v e esta blished their af f irmative defense of

res ju d ic a t a , and the trial court did not err in grant ing summ ary judgme nt in the ir favor.

E. Ry an’s Mot ion for Summary Judgment In he r moti on for summar y j udg ment, Bel ind a R y an as ser ted t he defenses of re s judicat a, collat eral esto ppe l, and claim preclusion pursuan t to the prope rty code

. Ry an’s

27
mo t i o n a d o p t s a n d i n c o r p o r a t e s b y r e fe r e n c e t h e mo t i o n s fi l e d b y P ro g r e s s i v e and the Bank , t he D av is appel lee s, and t he ot her appel lee s. W e c oncl ude Ry an es tabl is hed t he af f irmative defense of

res judicata , and the trial court did n o te rr in grant ing summ ary jud g ment i n her

fav or
. F. A pp ellan t’ s Iss ues W e n e xta d d r e s s a p p e l l a n t ’ s a rg u me n t s a s o u t l i n e d i n h i s b r i e f. 1. Co nst

itut io nal it y o f Sum mar

y Ju dgmen t Pro cedures In hi s f irs t is sue, appel lan t arg ues that the s ummary j udg ment procedu re v iol ates the Tex as and U nit ed St ates Con sti tuti ons becau se it depr iv es him of t he ri g ht to tr ial by jur y . Ap pel lan t fail ed to make thi s arg ument in re spons e to any of the a ppel lee s’ moti ons 28 for sum ma ry

judgmen t, an d has the refore w aived it on app eal. W e overrule appe llant’s 29N guyen v. I nt ert ex, I nc. , 9 3 S .W .3 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 2 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.). 30 Id

. a t 2 9 3

. 31 11 firs t i ss ue. 2. Ap pl icab ility o f ResJu dicat

a By his s e c o n d i ssue, app ellantargues thatres judicata doe s not ap ply in ci rc umstan ces w here “ after[ -] dis cov ered fraud ” is found. Appel lan t arg ues itw as i mp os s i bl e for

h i m t o r ai se f r au d ea r l i er b ec au s e “ th e fac ts o f t he frau d di d no t be c om e suc h a factunti l Apr il 25, 2006.” In suppo rt of t his as ser ti on, a ppel lan t c it es the a nsw er of Jes se Ma y nard. As noted ear li er , M ay nard’s answ er does not con sti tute any “ confess ion ” of any w rongdoin g and doe s not est ablish f raud . Manyof the d o cum ent s referen ced in appel lan t’ s b ri ef are to do cument s c ontai ned i n the append ic es to a p p e llant’s br ief, an d th e r e fo r e , a r e n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o rd

. W i t h l i mi t e d e x c e p t i o n s n o t r e l e v a n t h er e, an appel lat e c our

t maynot cons ide r matters o uts ide the appel lat e record. The attac hment 30 of documen ts a s e xhib its o r appendi ces to br iefs is not formal inc lus ion i n the record on appeal and, therefore, the d ocument s c annot be c onsi dered. 31 Al thoug h di ff ic ultto deci pher , appel lan t’ s remaini ng arg uments reg ardin g thi s i ss ue all ce nter

on h is al leg ati ons of f ra udu len t doc uments and fraudul ent c onduc t. Appel lan t
ass erts that the judg ments in caus e numbers T14, 490 and 05- E- 0617- C (t he presentsu it , before t he sev erance) are “v oid and v oid abl e,” and that in thos e c auses , t he c our t “ had no jurisdiction over the f raud ul e n td o c u m e n t s.” H e also argues th at th e f ull faith a nd cred it clause o f

t he Unite d Sta tes Con stitutio n som eho w comp els recognition o f his q uitclaim deed. Ag ain , non e of thes e arg uments w ere ra is ed in any w ri tten answ er or respon se bySee T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 6 6 a (c ). 32 See G uar

ant y Fed. Sav. Bank v. H or seshoe O per

ating Co. , 79 3 S

. W

. 2d 65 2, 65 8 (T ex
. 19 90 ). 33 G ui dr y v. N at ’ l Frei ght, I nc. , 9 4 4 S .W .2 d 8 0 7 , 8 1 2 (T e x . A p p .– A u s ti n 1 9 9 7 , n o p e t.). 34 See Schnei der

N at ’ l C ar r i er s, I nc. v. Bat es , 14 7 S

. W

. 3d 26 4, 29 2 n

. 14 1 (T ex
. 20 04 ). 35 12 appel lan t t o the tr ial cour t, and are therefore w aiv ed on appeal

. Ap pel lan t has fail ed to 32 est abl is h tha t t he doct ri ne of res jud ic ata is ina ppl ic abl e. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd is sue. 3. Sever

ance By h i s t hi rd i s s ue , ap pe l l an t c om pl ai ns th at th e tr i al c ou rt er r ed i n s ev er i ng h i s c l ai ms ag ain st appel lee s “ becau se the facts and i ss ues as to t he C onspi ra cy , F ra ud and Ai din g and Ab etti ng are i nter

w ov en w it h the res judi cat a and col lat eral est oppel .” W e di sag re e. A trial court’s decision to granta severance w ill notb e reversed un less the trial court is foun d to ha v e ab used its discretion. “ W here summ aryjudgmen t in favor of a singl e 33 def end antis proper in a case wi th m ultiple d efend ant s, severan c e o f t h a tclaim is also proper so thatit maybe appeal ed.” Hav ing upheld the tri al cour t’ s summar

y j udg ments 34 in f a vor o f appell ees, w e hol d the tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on by se v er ing appel lan t’ s c lai ms ag ain st appel lee s. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue. 4. No Record of Summar y Judgment Heari

ng By his fourth is sue, appell ant conte nds the tr ial courterred becaus e no re cord w as made of the hear ing on t he moti ons for s ummary j udg men t. W e di sag re e. The Tex as Supreme C our

t has hel d that a re por

ter ’s re cord is nei ther

nec ess ar

y nor appropr iat e for
a s ummary

j udg ment hea ri ng
. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s four th i ss ue. 35 5. Proper

Su mma ry J ud

gm ent St and ardSee Jone s , 9 0 0 S .W .2 d a t 8 8

. 36 13 By hi s fifth i ss ue, appel lan t appears to cont end that the tr ial cour t faile d to appl y

the proper st andard of rev iew

to appel lee s’ moti o n s fo r s u mmary

j udg ment bec ause he broug ht forth ev ide nce ra is ing genui ne i ss ues of materi al fact. Ag ain , w e di sag re e. Appel lee s h ad the b urden of present ing su ff ic ien t ev ide nce to e st a b lish the aff ir mati v e defense of res jud ic ata. W e hav e hel d tha t eac h appel lee di d s o. W e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s fifth i ss ue.

36 IV. Conclusion Havi ng overruled all of app ellant ’s issues, w e af f irm the trial court’s j udg m e n t s in fav or of each appel lee

. Al l pendi ng moti ons are di smi ss ed as moot.

_________

_________

____ LINDA REYNA Y

AÑEZ, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 24t h day

of September , 200 9.