### NUM BER 13-08- 0055 9-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
M A RK B ECK ER, M IKE CYR US, JESS E H A LL , A ND SH ERI HA M IT, A pp ellan ts,
v. TR OPIC ISL ES ASSOC IATION , A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 21 4t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s M ar kB ec k er , M i k e C y r us , J es s e H al l , an d Sh er i H am i t ( “ Be c k er” ) , ap pe l lants, appeal from t he tr ial co urt’ s e n te rin g of summar y j udg ment i n fav or

of Tropi c I sl es As s oc i at i on ( “ Trop i cI s l es ” ) , ap pe l l ee
. W e affi r m.Tr i a l c o u r t c a u s e n u m b e r 0 7
- 3 7 9 0
- F. 1 T he d oc um en t s Beck er at t ached t o an d cha l l enged i n hi s M ot i on f or Judi ci al R ev i ew wer e t he 2 f ol l owi ng: ( 1) “ T he T r opi c I sl es La ndowner s’ Agr eem ent ” ; ( 2) docu m ent num ber949 619, ent i t l ed

“ R est r i ct i ons” ; (3 ) docum ent num ber972 386, al so en t i t l ed “ R est r i ct i ons” ; and ( 4) docu m ent num ber989 438, en t i t l ed “ T he Tr op i c I sl es As so ci at i on By l aws. ” Be ckera l so a t t ac he d t o hi s M ot i on f orJ ud i ci al Rev i ew a s p re a d s h e e t, w h i c h B e c k e r s ta te d w a s a “l i s t o f re c o rd e d d o c u m e n ts fro m 1 9 8 2 to th e p re s e n t th a t a s s e rt a r ig h t t o a lie n a g a in s t p r o p e r ty w ith T r o p ic Is le s S u b d iv is io n b a s e d u p o n th e e x p ir e d T r o p ic I s le s L a n d o w n e r s [‘] Agr eem ent Vol

. 759 pg. [ si c] 449
- 452. ” Becker di d no t at t ach t he sp eci f i c docu m ent s l i st ed i n t he sp r eadshe et and di d no t ask t he t r i al cour t t o de t er m i ne whet her , un de r s ec t i on s 51. 901( c) ( 2) and 51. 903 oft he g o v e rn m e n t c o d e , t h e d o c u m e n ts w e re f ra u d u l e n t a n d s h o u l d n o t b e a c c o rd e d li e n s ta tu s
. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § § 5 1 .9 0 1 (c )( 2 ), 5 1 .9 0 3 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 & S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ).

Tr i a l c o u r t c a u s e n u m b e r 0 7
- 6 6 5 4
- F. 3 2 I. B A CKGRO UND On J uly 28, 2007, Beck er

fil ed a “M oti on for Judi ci al Rev iew of Doc umen ta ti on Purpo rting to Create a L ien” (“M otion for Judicial Revi ew” ). See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 1 51.903 (V er non 200 5)

. Beck er att ached four document s t o his Mo ti on for Judi ci al Rev iew and as ser

ted t hat t hese four doc uments “ are fraud u len t .

. . and therefore s houl d notbe
acc orded li en sta tus .” On Oct ober 10, 2007, w it hout re cei v ing tes ti mony from any

par ty 2 and w ithou t providing not ice of its review

of the docum ent s to Tropic Isles, th e trial court entered i ts “J udi ci al Fi ndi ng of F act and Con cl usi on of La w Reg ardin g Doc umentati on or Ins tr ument P ur por

ti ng to Create a Li en or a C lai m” (“ Judi ci al Fi ndi ng of Fact” ). On D ecember

14, 2007, Tropi c I sl es filed a pe ti ti on for bil l of rev iew st ati ng thatthe tr ial co urt ex ceede d i ts author ity under se cti on 51.903 w hen itente re d i ts Judi ci al Fi ndi ng of Fac t. See i

d. (per mitt ing the tr ial courtto deter mine w hether documents or i nst ru ments 3 pur por ti ng to create a l ien on real proper ty are f ra udul ent and shoul d not be acco rd ed l ien sta tus ). Tropi c I sl es all eg ed th at i ts due process ri g hts w ere v iol ated becau se itdi d not
re cei v e not ic e of Bec ker ’s M oti on for Judi ci al Rev iew or of the t ri al cour

t’ s p ro ceedi ng s o nO n Novem ber6, 2007, A r t S chul t z , pr esi dent of t he T r opi c I sl es Associ at i on, sent an em ai l t o t he 4 t r i al cour t asser t i ng t hat t he i ssues r ai sed by Beck er ’ s M ot i on f or Judi ci al R ev i ew had pr ev i ousl y bee n de ci ded b y th i s C o u rt. See R eed v . T rop i c Isl es Hom eow ner s Assoc. , N o . 1 3 -0 2 -2 2 0 -C V , 2 0 0 4 T e x . A p p . L E X IS 11324 , at * 2 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i D ec. 16, 2004, pet

. deni ed)

. Schul t z er r ed i n hi s i nt er pr et at i on o four hol di ng i n t hat case. I n R eed , we di d no t add r ess whet hert he v ar i ous d ocum ent s wer e i n f act f r audul ent as R e e d a s s e rte d

. See i d. W e h e l d o n l y th a t t h e tri a l c o u rt a c te d o u ts i d e it s p l e n a ry p o w e r w h e n i t a m e n d e d i ts o rig i n a l o rd e r a n d th a t t h e tri a l c o u rt p ro p e rlyg ra n te d s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t o n th i s g ro u n d

. I d. a t * * 8
- 9

. T r o p ic I sl es r epeat ed t hi s ar gum ent i n i t s pet i t i on f or bi l l ofre v i ew. W hi l e we a ppr eci at e ag gr essi v e ad v ocacy on a cl i ent ’ s beh al f , we en cour age par t i es t o accu r at el y st at e ou r hol di ngs t o t r i al cour t s. 3 the mot ion

. Tropi c I sl es further arg u e d t h a t Be cker ’s and the t ri al cour t’ s a cti ons 4 amounted to a de cla ra tor y j udg ment acti on, o f w hic h Tro picIs les sh oul d hav e recei v ed noti ce. On July 21, 200 8, T ropic Isles mo v ed for sum ma ry judgmen t on its pe tition for bill of rev iew arguing tha t its due p rocess rig hts w ere vi olate d by the grant ing of a declara tory jud g ment acti on broug ht ag ain st itw it hout noti ce. Tropi c Isl es als o as ser ted t hat B eck er commi tted fraud on the tr ial co urt and pray ed that the tri al cour t v oid and v acat e i ts Judi ci al Fi ndi ng of Fact. On A ug ust28, 2008, w it hout sta ti ng the g ro unds therefor, the t ri al cour t g ra nted Tropi c I sl es’ s mot ion for summar y jud g ment and it s peti ti on for bil l of rev iew , and the tr ial
cour t v oid ed and v acat ed i ts Judi ci al Fi ndi ng of Fact. This appeal ens ued. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e follow the w ell-settled stand ard of rev iew for tradition al sum ma ry judgmen ts. W e mustdete rmi ne w hether the mov ant h as met his burden t o es tabl is h tha t no g enui ne is s u e o f m a t e ri a l fa c t e xis t s a n d t h a t h e is e n t it le d t o s u m m a ry ju d gm e n t a s a m a t t e r o f la w. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66a( c) ; Sw. Elec . Po wer Co. v. Gr ant , 7 3 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 (T e x. 200 2). W e take a s t rue all e v iden ce tha t is favorable to the n onm ovant and in dulge every
reaso nab le inferen ce an d resolve any dou bts in the non mo v ant ’s fa v or. Rhone-Po ulen c, Inc

. v. Steel , 997 S.W .2d 2 17, 2 23 ( Tex . 199 9) ; Sci ence Spec tr

um , Inc. v. M

ar ti nez , 9414

S.W .2d 9 10, 9 11 ( Tex . 199 7)

. W hen, as here, t he tr ial co urt doe s n o t d e lin e a te the groun ds up on which it g rante d sum ma ry judgmen t, w e w ill af

f irm the tradition al sum ma ry jud g ment i f anyof the g ro unds sta ted i n the moti on i s mer it or iou s. W . Invs ., Inc . v

. U re na , 162 S.W .3d 547 , 550 (Tex. 2005 ). III . A N AL Y S IS In i ts m o ti o n for s ummary j udg ment, Tropi c I sl es cont ended t hat i t w as enti tl ed to jud g ment as a mat ter

of law on i ts bil l o f

r e vi ew bec ause itw as deni ed proper se rv ic e of proces s. See C ald well v. Bar nes , 1 54 S. W .3d 9 3, 96 -9 7 ( Tex . 200 4) ( sta ti ng thatbi ll of
re v iew pl ain ti ffs ass erti ng lack of serv ic e are enti tl ed to g ra nti ng of bil l of rev iew w hen t hey prov e l ack

of ser v ic e)

. To re sol v e thi s is sue, w e must answ er tw o q uest ion s: ( 1) w hether Beck er ’s M oti on for

Judic ial Rev iew

w as a proper

secti on 51. 903 moti on, w hic h does not
re q uire not ic e, or

w as a moti on seek ing a decl arator y jud g ment, w hic h does re q uire not ic e; and (2 ) if Beck er ’s Mo ti on for Judi ci al Rev iew w as a dec larator y j udg ment acti on, w hether t h e t r i a l c o u rt a p p l i e d t h e p ro p e r b i l l o f re v i e w s t a n dar d. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 51.903; T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 37. 006 (a) (Vernon 2 008 ) ( “W hen declarat ory re li ef is so ug ht, all persons w ho hav e or cl aim any

i nterestthatw oul d be affect ed by the d ecl arati on mus t be made par ti es. ”) ; T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 2 1; C on s ec o F i n. S er v ici ng v . Klein Indep. Sch. D is t. , 78 S.W .3d 6 66, 6 76 (Tex . App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 2002, no pet.) ( “The requ i rem en t of du e proc es s of l aw i s me t i f th e no ti c e pres c r i be d affords th e partya fair oppor tuni ty to ap pear

and defend it s i nterest s.” ) (c it ing S gitcovich v. Sgitcovich , 1 5 0 T e x. 398 , 404 , 241 S.W .2d 142 , 146 (1951 )). A . Sec tion 51.90 3 Motion or Decla ratory Judgment Action Becke r conten ds tha t gov ernm ent code section 51. 903 provides the auth orityfor his Mo ti on for Judi ci al Rev iew

. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 51. 903. Secti on 51. 903, enti tl ed5

“A cti on on Fraudul ent L ien on P ro per ty ,” prov ide s i n per

ti nent par

t: A pers on w ho i s t he pur por ted d ebtor

or obl ig or or w ho ow ns re al or

personal proper ty or an i n te re st in real or

personal proper

ty and w ho has reason to bel iev e tha t t he doc ument pu rp orti ng to create a l ien or a c lai m ag ain st the re al or personal proper

ty or an i nteresti n the r e a l o r personal proper ty prev iou sl y

fil ed or su bmit ted for

fil ing and re cordi ng i s fraudul ent may compl ete a nd fil e w it h the di str ict c ler k a moti on .
. . . Id. § 51 .903( a)

. The mov ant may att ach the a ll eg edl y

fraudul ent d ocumentati on or ins tr ument t o the moti on. Id. Se cti on 51. 903 c ontai ns a sug g est ed form for the mot ion and
a s ug g est e d f o rm of judg ment. See i d. § 51 .903( a) ( moti on form) , ( g ) (o rd er form for judicial f indings of

fact and conclusio ns of law ). Section 5 1.9 03 f urthe r states, “T he co urt’s findi ng may

be made so lel y

on a rev iew

of the d ocument ati on or inst ru ment attac hed to the moti on and w it hout hear ing any tes ti monial ev ide nce. The c our t’ s rev iew

may be made ex parte w ithou t dela y

or notice of

any ki nd. ” Id. § 51 .903( c)

. “F ra udul ent document or i nst ru ment,” as us ed by se cti on 51. 903, is defined as: ( 1) a doc umen t o r in st ru ment t hat “ is not a doc ument or i nst ru ment prov ide d for by the
cons ti tuti on or laws of t his sta te or of t he U nit ed St ates ”; ( 2) a do cumentor i nst ru ment “ not
created by

i mpli ed or

ex press co nsentor

ag re ement o f

t h e obli g or , deb tor , or

the ow ner of the real or

personal proper

ty or an i nteresti n the real or perso n a l p ro p e rt y . . ., or by impl ied or

ex press co nsentor

ag re ement of an ag ent, fiduci ar y , or other

represent ati v e of that person” ; or (3 ) a d ocumentor i nst ru ment t hat “ is not an eq uit abl e, c onst ru cti v e, or other l ien i mposed by

a c our t w it h j ur is dicti on cre ated or est abl is hed under the c onst it uti on or la w s o f

t his state o r of

t he United S tate s.” Id. § 51. 901( c) (2 ) (V er non Su pp. 2 009) ; see id. § 51.9 03(a ). Und er se cti on 51. 903, the t ri al cour t is ex press ly

l imi ted t o det er mini ng w hether the document or ins tr ument is fraudul ent; it may not ru le on the v ali dity of the unde rl y ing l ien6

o r o t h e r c l a ims

. Id. § 5 1 .903( a) , ( g ); see a lso In re Hart , N o
. 0 7
- 9 8
- 0 2 9 2
- C V , 1 9 9 9 WL 225 956 , at *2 (T ex. App.–Am arillo A pr. 15, 1 999 , no pet .) (no t designat ed for pub lication). T ropic Isles argues tha t, in ruling on Becker’s Motion for Judicial Revi ew, the trial court did
mo re than dete rmine w het her the docu me nts at tach ed to the m otion w ere f ra udu lent; it decl ared, a mong othe r thi ng s, that Tropi c I sl es did not ex is t. T ro picIsle s fur ther as ser ts that the t ri al cour

t, by tak ing su ch act ion , con vert ed Bec ker ’s M oti on for Judi ci al Rev iew int o a d ecl arator

y j udg ment. W e ag re e. In hi s M oti on for Judi ci al Rev iew , Be ck er us ed th e form p ro vi ded i n s ect ion 51.903( a) as an o utl ine fo r h is p le adi ng
. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 51. 903 (a). Sp e cif ica lly, B e ck e r’s “Pr a yer” s ta te d th e fo llo wing:

For the abov e re asons [,] the Mo v ants as k t he c our t t o s ig n an order deter mini ng w hether Doc ument #949619, Doc ument #972386, and Doc umen t # 9 8 9438 shoul d be acc orded l ien status

. The Mo v ants ask the cour t for an order dec lar ing thatthe 1956 La ndow ner ’s Ag re ement ha s ex pired and canno t be used to create a lien ag ain st the Mov ant s’ propertie s. Th e Movants’ [ s ic ] a s k the cou rt to ma ke oth er orders as the court deems appropr iat e. Throug hout his M oti on for Judi ci al Rev iew , Be ck er repeated ly

as ked the c our

t t o: decl are tha t t he [s ic ] D ocument s [ si c] #939619, D ocument#97238 6, an d Doc ument #9 89438 a re fraudul ent u nder the meanin g of sec ti on 51. 903 of the G ov er nment C ode and thatthos e do cu ments do notprov ide the dev elo pment c omm it te e wit h the auth or ity to create li ens or

to create a ma nda tory hom eowner’s associatio n w ith the power to creat e liens. In i ts Judi ci al Fi ndi ng of Fact, the t ri al cour t det er mined that: ( 1 ) “t h e T ro picIs les Landow ners A ss oci ati on .
. . ex pire d o n A p ril 30[ ,] 1981” ; ( 2) “ the e x pired Tropi c I sl es Landow ners’ Ag re ement ha s n o forc e or effecti n l aw

and does not s uppor

t a clai m to
create a l ien or

create a l andow ner ’s as soc iat ion w it h a r ig ht t o c re ate a l ien ”; and (3 ) documentnumbers 949619, 972386 , and 989438 are “ fraudul ent u nder the meanin g of s.5 1 [s ic ] of the Gov er nment C ode and does [si c] not p ro v ide the author ity for t he c re ati on7

of li ens or

the creati on of

a homeow ner ’s as soc iat ion w it h the pow ers t o c re ate l ien s.” The Judi ci al Fi ndi ng of

Fact cont ain ed the boil er pla te lang uag e in th e s ug g est ed form i n s ect ion 51.903, st ati ng , “ Th is co u rtmakes no fin din g as to any under ly ing cl aims of the p arti es i n v o l v e d , a n d ex pr e s s l y l i mi t s i t s fi n d i n g o f fa c ta n d c o n c l u s i o n o f l a w t o t h e re v i e w

o f a mini ste ri al act

. . . .”

“‘ [T]he l eg al effectof a pl eadi ng in Tex as is not deter mined by i ts sty le or

name, but by its conte ntion s and purpo se.’” Kr is hnan v. Ra mirez , 4 2 S

. W

. 3 d 2 0 5 , 2 2 4 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 1 , p e t. de n ie d ) (qu o ti n g Guer re rov. Standa rd Al

loy s M fg. Co. , 598 S.W .2d 656 , 657 -58 (Te x . Civ . App .–B eau mo nt 19 80, w rit ref 'd n.r .e.)). Here, Becke r’s Mo ti on for Judi ci al Rev iew req uest ed greater

rel ief tha n s ect ion 51.9 03 prov ide s. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 51 .90 3. Sect ion 51 .90 3 pe rmi t s t h e trial court to det ermin e on ly
w hether the documentor

inst ru ment pur por

ti ng to create a l ien i s fraudul ent. Id. Be ck er
re q uest ed r uli ng s o n the ex pirati on of the “L andow ner ’s Ag re ement” and on w hether the other three doc uments “ prov ide the dev elo pment c ommitt ee w it h t h e authori ty to create li ens or to create a ma n d a to ryhomeow ner 's as soc iat ion w it h the pow er to create li ens. ” The tr ial co urt ex press ly r ule d tha t the “Landow ner ’s Agreement” had ex pired and that the other three document s do “n ot prov ide the author ity for the creati on of l ien s o r the c re ati on of a homeow ner ’s as soc iat ion w it h the pow ers to create li ens. ” By as ki ng the tr ial co urt t o is sue ru li ng s b ey ond w hether the chal len g ed doc uments w ere fraudulentunder se cti on 5 1 .9 0 1 (c) (2 ), Be ck e r

c o n vert e d hi s Mo ti o n fo r Ju d ici a l Re view in to an ac ti o n se e kin g a decl arati on of the ri g hts of Tropi c I sl es. W e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt’ s J udi ci al Fi ndi ng of Fact am oun ted to a decla ratory judgme nt; therefore, Tropic Isles w as ent itled to notice and an oppor

tuni ty to be heard, w hic h i t di d notrecei v e. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN . § 37.006( a) ; T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 2 1; Con sec o F in. Ser vici ng , 7 8 S

. W

. 3 d a t6 7 6 ( ci ti ng8

Sgitco vich , 150 Te x . at 40 4, 24 1 S.W .2d at 146 ). B. Bi ll of

R ev iew Hav ing dete rmi ned t hat Becker ’s M oti on for Judi ci al Rev iew ac tual ly so ug ht decl aratory reli ef, w e mustnow dec ide w hether

the tr ial co urt app li ed th e proper bi ll of
re v iew st andard. T ro p icI s le s a rg u e s t h a t , t o p re va il o n it s b il l o f re vie w, it wa s o n ly r e qu ir e d t o p ro ve l a c kof n o t i c e
. B e c k e r

co n t e n d s th a tth e fou r- p a rtt e s to f Fl or es v. Fl or es w as the p ro per sta ndard to appl y

to Tropi c I sl es’ s b il l of rev iew

. See 1 1 6 S

. W

. 3 d 8 7 0 , 8 7 4 (T e x. App .–Corp us Christi 2003 , no pe t). W e agree w ith T ropic Isles. The tradi ti onal bi ll of re v iew st andard req u ire s bil l of rev iew pl ain ti ffs t o pl ead and p ro v e : “ ( 1 ) a m e r i t o r i o u s d e fe n s e t o t h e un d e r l y i n g ca u s e of a c t i o n , ( 2 ) w h i c h t h e p l a i n t i ffs
w ere prev ented from maki ng by the fraud, acc ide nt or

w ro ng ful act of

the oppos ing par

ty or of f icial mistake , (3) unm ix ed wi th an y f a u lt o r neglig ence on the ir ow n pa rt.” Caldwell
v. Bar nes , 154 S.W .3d 93, 96 (Tex . 2004) ( per cu ri am). I n Fl

or es , w e stat ed, “W here there has been a tr ial on t he mer it s, a l osi ng defendant can onl y seek re li ef bybi ll of re v iew i f the chan ce to f ile a mo tion for new trial or ap pea l h as be en lost .” 116 S.W .3d at 874 . Th us,
w e not ed th at t he tradi ti onal bi ll of re v iew pl ain ti ff mustprov e, i n addi ti on to the three ele ments li ste d i n Caldwell , “a failure to f ile a mo tion for new trial or a fa ilure to ad v ance
an a ppe al . . . .” Id. ; see Cald we ll , 154 S.W .3d a t 96. In Caldwell , t he Tex as Suprem e Cour t hel d tha t “ [b]i ll of re v iew pl ain ti ffs c lai ming
non- serv i c e
. . . a re re l i e v e d o f t h e ” b u rd e n o f p ro v i n g a me r i t o r i o u s d e fe n s e a n d “ from show ing thatfraud, ac ci dent, w ro ng ful ac t or off ic ial mis tak e prev ented [i t] from prev enti ng such a defense .” Caldwell , 154 S.W .3d a t 96. Bi ll of r e view pl ain ti ffs a ss erti ng l ack ofSect i o n 5 1

. 9 0 3 r e q u i r e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o s e n d “ [ a ] c o p y o f t h e f i n d i n g o f f a c t a n d c o n c l u s i on o f 5 la w . . . b y f ir s t c la s s m a il, t o th e m o v a n t a n d to th e p e r s o n w h o f ile d th e f r a u d u le n t lie n o r c la im

. . . w ith in s e v e n d a y s o f th e d a te ” t h a t th e tri a l c o u rt i s s u e s i ts fin d i n g o f f a c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n o f l a w . T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 5 1 .9 0 3 (e ). H e re , t h e tri a l c o u rt c o m p l i e d w i th th i s re q u i re m e n t.

O n appeal , B ecker asser t s t hat t he t r i al cour t er r ed by not re qui r i ng T r opi c I sl es t o pr ov e t hat i t had 6 e x h a u s te d o th e r re m e d i e s a v a i l a b l e s u b s e q u e n t t o th e tri a l c o u rt’ s i s s u i n g i ts J u d i c i a l F i n d i n g o f F a c t. See W em bl eyI nv
. C o. v . H errera , 11 S. W

. 3d 9 24, 927 ( T ex. 1999) (“ I fl egal re m edi es wer e ava i l abl e bu t i gnor ed, r el i efby equ i t abl e bi l l of r ev i ew i s unav ai l abl e. ” )

. Beck er cont ends t hat T r opi c I sl es cou l d ha v e f i l ed a m ot i on t o r ei nst at e orf or new t r i al , ori t coul d ha v e pe r f ect ed a di r ect app eal f r om t he t r i al cour t ’ s Judi ci al Fi ndi ng o f F a c t. H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e T r o p ic Is le s d id n o t r e c e iv e n o tic e o f w h a t w a s a c tu a lly a d e c la r a to r y ju d g m e n t, it h a d n o d u ty to p a rti c i p a te i n th e p ro c e e d i n g s
. See W i lson v. D unn , 800 S. W

. 2d 8 33, 837 ( T ex. 199 0) ( “ Absent s ervi c e, w ai ver, or c i t ati on , m ere k no w l ed ge of a p en di ng su i t do es no t pl ac e a ny du t y on a d efe nd an t t o a c t

. ”)

. 9 ser v ic e c oncl usi v ely

es tabl is h the thi rd el ement by prov ing that theyw ere nev er se rv ed w it h proces s. Id. ; see Ros s v . Nat’ l Ct r. for the Em ploym ent o f t

he D is abled , 197 S.W .3d 7 95, 797 (Tex. 2006 ) ( per curiam ). The fact th a t Tropi c I sl es did not re cei v e not ic e of Bec ker ’s M oti on for Judi ci al Revi ew and t he p rocee ding thereo n is uncon troverted. T ropic Isles att ache d the af f idavit of ArtSc hul tz to i ts m oti on for summar y j udg ment. Sc hul tzst ated that nei ther he n or Tropi c I sl es w as ser

v ed w it h proces s conc er nin g Beck er ’s M oti on for Judi ci al Rev iew

. In his b rief to thi s C our

t, Beck er co nfir med thatno n oti ce of his M oti on for Judi ci al Rev iew
w as sentto Tropi c I sl es unti l after the t ri al cour t iss ued i ts Judi ci al Fi ndi ng of Fact. 5 Addi ti onal ly , t he tr ial co urt’ s J udi ci al Fi ndi ng of Fact reci tes thatthere w as no noti ce of its
rev iew of Becker’s Motion for Judicial Re vie w. W e con clude that , und er Caldwell , by prov ing thati t di d notrecei v e not ic e of Bec ker ’s M oti on fo r Ju dic ial R ev iew and the proceed ing s t hereon, Tropi c I sl es conc lus iv e ly e st a bli shed that no g enui ne i ss ue of
m a t e ri a l fa c te xis t s a n d t h a titwa s e n t it le d t o su m m a ry j u d gm e n ta s a m a t t e r o f la w. See 6 Caldwell , 154 S. W .3d a t 96; Ross , 1 9 7 S .W .3 d a t 7 9 7

. W e ove rru le Be ck e r’s ch a lle n ge t o t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s su m m a ry j u d gm e n tgra n t in g T ro p icI s le s ’s p e t it io n fo r b il l o f re vie w.Beck er ar gues t hat equ i t y r equi r es t hi s C our t t o r ev er se t he g r ant i ng o fsum m ar y j udgm ent i n f av or 7 ofT r opi c I sl es be cause T r opi c I sl es “ has shown a r epeat ed p at t er n of abu si ng t he Nueces C ount y [ r ] ecor di ng s y s te m b y fi l i n g d o c u m e n ts th a t c o n ta i n fa l s e s ta te m e n ts ,” in c l u d i n g “ o v e r o n e -h u n d re d [s i c ] (1 0 0 ) d o c u m e n ts wher e [ i t ] cl ai m s t o hav e
. . . secur ed l i ens agai nst pr oper t y owner s i n t he T r opi c I sl es Subdi v i si on t hr ough t he en forc em en t ” of t he al l eg ed l y ex pi red T rop i c I s l es La nd ow ne rs A gre em en t

. H avi ng affi rm ed t he su m m ary j u d g m e n t o n g r o u n d s p r e s e n te d in T r o p ic Is le s ’s m o tio n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t, w e d o n o t r e a c h th is e q u ita b le a rg u m e n t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7 .1 ; W

. I nvestm ents, I nc. v. U rena , 162 S

. W

. 3d 547, 550 ( T ex. 200 5) ( not i ng t hat when t he t r i al cour t does not st at e t he gr ounds upon whi ch sum m ar y j udgm ent i s gr ant ed, we aff i r m i fany gro un ds are m eri t ori ou s ). 10 IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led Bec ker ’s appel lat e i ss ue, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt. 7

______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________

______ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Del iv ered and filed the 11th day of Ma rc h, 20 10.