1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g ar i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 07- 307- CC L , s t y l ed R i ver M ou nt ai n P r op er t y O w ner s A s s ’ n, I

nc. v . D a rre n S . F a lli s, a n d w ife S ta c y D . F a lli s , p e n d ing in t h e C o u n ty C o u rt a t L a w , K e n d a ll C o u n ty, T e x a s , t h e H o n o ra b le B i l l P al m er presi d i ng. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No. 04-08-00781- CV IN RE Dar

ren S. F AL LIS and wife Stacy D. F AL LIS Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1
PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Fe bruar y 4, 2009
PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS CONDI TI ONAL L Y GRANTED On Octobe r 23, 2008, re lators filed this petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial cour

t to set the case for a

jury trial. We conditionally

g rant manda

mus relief. B ACKG ROUND Re lator s D arr e n a

nd Sta c y F a llis (“t he Fa lli se s” ) a

re pr op e rt y ow ne rs in R ive r M ounta in Ranch, a subdivision i n Ke n d al l C o unty , Texas. Real party in interest River Mountain Ranch Property Owner s Associati o n (“ t he Association”) is the prope rty owner s association of the04

- 08

- 00 78 1- CV

- 2- subdi v i s i on wher e the F allises curr ently own prope rty . River Mountain Ranch is a r esidential
s ubdivision t hat was e stablished in 1996. When it was established, the Association filed a Dec laration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions in the Kendal l County rec ords, pre venting any improvement fr om beingbuilt on any five a cre or l arg er tract of land within various distances fr om e a c h s ide of

the pr op e rt

y lin e . I n 19 98 , the As so c iatio n fi le d a se c on d in str

ume nt i n th e Ke nd a ll Cou n t y re co rd s, entitled Mailbox Easeme nt from Properties of the Southwest, L .P. to R iver Mountain Ra

n c h Pr o p e r ty O wn e r s A s s o c ia

ti o n. After

filing this instrument, the Association installed mailbox es and a

building to cove r the mailboxes on the ease ment. I n 2004, the Fa llises purchase d proper ty in River Mountain Ranch. Three y ear s later, the Fa llises informed the Association that the mailbox building wa s in violation of the restric tive covena nt a nd the ease ment, and they demande d that the association remove the building
. Th e As so c iatio n re fu se d to c omp ly wi th the F a lli se s’ de mand s a nd fi le d s uit a g a ins t th e m, seekinga dec laratory

judgme nt and attorne y ’s fe es. T he Association sought the following de c laratio ns fr om t

he tr ia l c ourt : ( 1) the e a se me nt g ra nts the As so c iatio n th e a

uth or ity to c on str uc t, repa ir, rebuild or r eplac e the building or m ailbox cover ; (2) the ease ment g rants the Assoc iation the authority to install fenc ing or paving as nece ssary to f acilitate the full use and en j o y m en t o f t he
ease ment by

the re sidents of the River Mountain Ranc h subdivision; (3) the e aseme nt gr ants the Association the sole authority to deter mine the s ize and design of the construction of t he mailboxes and any structure associate d with it; (4) the Fa llises had notice that their pr operty was subjec t to the mailbox ease ment; and (5) the trial co u rt g rant other decla rations nec essar

y to clarify the par ties rig hts and obligations under the ter ms of the ea sement.04

- 08

- 00 78 1- CV

- 3- The F allises timely

filed their orig inal answe r and counter claim on Aug ust 6, 2008, which included a de mand for a

jury trial and a timely

paid jury fee to the cler

k of the c ourt. I n Dec ember 2008, the Fa llises filed a motion for summary judgme nt, seeking the t rial court’s ruling on all issues in the Association ’s p eti tion for dec laratory judgme nt and the F allises’ counte rcla im. The Association also filed a

motion for summary judgme nt a s to only the Fa llises’ counterc laim. After ho ldi nga he ari ngon

the op po sin g mot ion s f

or su mma ry jud g me nt, the tr ia l ju dg e de nie d th e F a lli se s’ motion for summary

judgme nt and sig ned an or der on Ma y 7, 200 8 grantingthe Association’s mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. Th e or de r p ro vid e d th a t th e F a lli ses tak e no thi ngon the ir counter claim and included a clause holding that a ll relief not her ein g rante d is denied. The F allises fi le d a mot ion to r e c on sid e r a

nd va c a te the May

7, 20 08 or de r i n p art , w hic h w a s subse qu entl y denied by the trial judg e. On August 4, 2008, upon the reque st of the par ties, the trial judg e held a hear ing on the Association’s petition for de clar atory relief — which we re the only claims pending befor e the cour t
a ft e r t he tria l ju dg e g ra

nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt i n f

a vo r o f t he As so c iatio n o n th e F a lli se s’ counter claim. At the hear ing, the trial judge indicated that he believed that the May 7, 2008 order disposed of all t he parties and the issues in the case and w as a f inal summary

judgme nt. Accor ding to the parties, they

advised the c ourt that it was their be lief that the orde r gra nting the A ssociation’s motion for summary judgme nt did not addr ess the Association’s petition for decla ratory relief . As
a re su lt, the tr ia l ju dg e pe rm itt e d th e pa rt ie s to pr e se nt ar g ume nt o n th e As so c iatio n’ s v ari ou s c la ims for which it soug ht declar atory relief . At the end of

the hea ring , the trial judg e advise d the par ties that he would pre pare an order or judgme nt on the rema ining issues. How ever , on October 1, 2008,04

- 08

- 00 78 1- CV

- 4- the trial judg e instead va cate d the May 7, 2008 order that had g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of the Assoc iation on the Fa llises’ counterc laims. That same orde r provided:

On Au g us t 4, 20 08 , tr ia l of

the a bo ve matte r w a s h eard whe rein a ll parties a ppear ed, presented e vidence , and made their ar g uments. . . . [A] s a re sult of this Order, that continuation of the trial of the above matte r i s se t f

or Oc tob e r 3 0, 20 08 at 9:0 0 a .m. to a llo w the pa rt ie s to pr e se n tan y

a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e an d ar g u m e n t s t o s u

p p o rtt h e ir respe ctive positions. On October 3, 2008, the Fa llises filed an objec tion to the October 1, 2008 or der, c omplaining of the trial judg e’s se tting of the ir counter claims o n Oc t o b er 3 0, 2008 without a jury trial and reque sting that the c ase be set on the jury docket. The Fallises claimed that they are entitled to have their counte rcla ims resolved by a j u ry beca

use there are fac t issues involved. The Fa llises sought to have their

objection set for

a hea ring on October

20, 2008, but the court declined to se t the hear ing on that date, a

nd instead set the he aringfor Oc tober 30, 2008, the same da y “the c ontinuation of the trial” wa s set. On Octobe r 7, 2008, the trial judge issued a letter ruling to the parties, a dvising them that the Octobe r 1, 2008 order set “the continuation of t he trial” from August 4, 2008 t o October 30, 2008. The trial judg e went on to provide that “[t] his was done f or the sole pur

pose of a llowing the pa rt ie s, if ne e de d, to re op e n to of fe r a ny a dd iti on a l e vid e nc e pr ior

to t he Cou rt ru lin g . T he Cou

rt wi ll not consider a

ny additional motions for summary judgme nt or other pr e-tria l matters.” The trial judge conclude d that the parties wer e to advise the trial court in writing if both parties had pr esente d all of their evidenc e at the August 4th trial, and if that was the c ase, the trial judg e would drop the October 30, 2008 trial setting a

nd issue a fina l judg ment. On October 16, 2008, the Fa llises filed a motion for continuance and an obje ction to and motion to vacate the trial court’ s letter ruling dated October 7, 2008, which ag ain included a reque st that the trial judge set the ca se for a jury trial.04

- 08

- 00 78 1- CV

2 ... A s a res ul t o f

thi s co urt ’ s st ay, the F al l i ses ’ m o t i o n for co nt i nuance and t he O ct o b er 16 , 20 0 8 ob ject i o n and m o tio n to va c a te the trial ju d g e ’s lette r ru ling d a te d O c to b e r 7 , 2 0 0 8 w e re ne v e r ru le d o n b y the trial c o u rt.

- 5- On Octobe r 23, 2008, the Fa llises f iled this pe tition for writ of mandamus. I ncluded with the petition wa s a motion for temporar y relief seekingto stay

the trial cour

t proce eding s, which this court g rante d. 2 Th e F a lli se s a sse rt the tr ia l ju dg e a

bu se d h is d isc re tio n b y

de nyingthe m a

jur y tr ia l on the ir counter claims on all disputed fac t issues pursuant to their timely jury demand a

nd pay ment of the jury fee
. A N A L Y SIS Mandamus will issue only to corre ct a c lear

abuse of discretion for which the r elator ha s no adequate reme dy at law. In re Prude ntial Ins. Co. of Am. , 1 4 8 S
. W
. 3 d

1 2 4 , 1 3 5 (T ex . 2 0 0 4 ) ( o ri g. pr oc e e din g ); W

alker v . Pack

er , 827 S.W .2d 833, 839-40 (Te x . 1992) (or ig. pr ocee din g ). A trial c ourt has no discre tion in determining w hat the law is or in a pply ing the law to the fa cts, and a c lear failure to analy ze or apply the l aw corre ctly will constitute an abuse of discre tion. W alker , 827 S.W .2d at 840. Mandamus is appropr iate only when the relator has no ade quate r emedy on appea l. Id. The de nia l of a tr ia l by jur y ha s be e n de te rm ine d b y

our s up re me c ourt

to b e re vie wa

ble by mand a mus . See I n re Prudential , 14 8 S.W. 3d a t 13 8- 39 (h old ing “ [t]he de nia l of tr ia l by jur y is .
. . re vie wa

ble by mandamus”)
.

“ Th e ri g ht to jur

y tr ia l is on e of our mos t pr e c iou s ri g hts , ho ldi ng ‘a sa c re d pla c e in E ng lis h and Amer ican history .’” Ge n. Mo tor s Co rp . v . G ay le , 9 5 1 S
. W
. 2 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 6 (T ex . 1 9 9 7 ) ( o r i g. pr oc e e din g ). To e xer c ise the ir ri g ht t o a tr ia l by jur y , th e F a lli se s we re re qu ir e d to fo llo w T e xas R ule of Civ il Pr oc e dure 21 6, by

fi lin g “ a wr itt e n r e qu e st f

or a jur y tr ia l [wi th] the c le rk of th e cou rt a04

- 08

- 00 78 1- CV

3 ... T h e A sso c ia tio n in its re sp o n se a sse rts t h a t the m a n d a m u s is p re m a tur e b e c a u se the F a lli se s faile d to g e t a ru ling o n th e ir O c to b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 o b je c tio n a n d re q u e st fo r a ju ry tria l o r o n the ir m o tio n fo r c o n tinu a n c e . W e a g re e w ith t he A s s oci at i on t hat t he t r i al judge neve r rul ed on t he Fal l i s es ’ O ct ob er 1 6, 2 00 8 ob j ect i on and re ques t f or a j ur y t r i al or on t h ei r mot i on f

or c on t i n u an ce . H owe v er , t h e As s oci at i on f ai l s t o c on s i der t h e ef

f ec t of t h e Fa l l i s es ’ O ct ober 3, 2008

- 6- rea sonable time be fore the date set for trial of the cause on the non-jury docket, but not les s than thi rt y da y s in adv anc e ” and tim e ly pa y the jur y fe e by de po sit ing it with the c le rk of the c ourt “ wi thi n the time for makinga wr itten reque st for a jury trial.” See T EX . R. C IV . P. 216. Th e re c or d r e fl e c ts the F a lli se s c omp lie d wit h Te xas R ule of Civ il Pr oc e dure 21 6 in perf ectingtheir rig ht to a jury trial. The Fa llises made a timely written demand f or a jury trial and the n p a id t

he ir jur y fe e in c omp lia

nc e wi th r

ule 21 6. I n add ition , th e re c or d in dic a te s th a t sh or tly afte r the trial judg e’s Oc tober 1, 2008 orde r setting “the c ontinuance of the trial” f

or Oc tober 30, 2008, the Fa llises objected to the benc h trial and stated their intention to stand on their rig ht to a jury tr ia l in the ir Oc tob e r 3, 20 08 ob je c tio n a nd re qu e st that th e c a se be se t on the jur y do c ke t. I n th e ir objection, the Fa llises a

rg ued that at the time of the August 4, 2008 hearingonly the Association’s decla ratory judgme nt claims were befor e the c ourt. As a result, t he Fallises’ counte rcla im was neve r set for tria l. Following the filing of that objection and their reque st that the ir objection be he ard by the tr ia l ju dg e pr ior

to t he Oc tob e r 3 0, 20 08 “ c on tin uatio n o f t

he tr ia l,” the tr ial ju dge is su e d h is October 7, 2008 letter ruling
. I n that ruling , the trial judg e indicate d that he conside red the October 30, 2008 setting a s a “c ontinuation of the trial,” a nd indicated that he would not consider a ny additional pre- trial matters. As a result, the trial judge clea rly intended to proce ed with a be nch trial without setting the c ase on the jury docket as the Fallises had requested. We find the F allises made a suff icient demand f

or a jury trial, and as evidenc ed by the t rial j udg e’s October 7, 2008 le tter, the tr ia l ju dg e c le arl y

re fu se d to se t th e c a se on the jur y do c ke t. 304

- 08

- 00 78 1- CV

o b ject i o n and request t hat t he case be s et o n t he jury d o cket , and t he subseq uent O ct o b er 7 , 20 0 8 l et t er r ul i ng evi d enci ng t he t r i al j udge’ s i nt ent t o m ove f orwa r d w i t h a bench t r i al and n ot pl ace t he cas e on t he j ur y docket ev en af t er t he Fal l i s es re q u e ste d it
.

- 7- As a re sult of the fore g oing, w e conc lude the trial judg e er red in not setting the case on the jury docket. “ A refusal t o g rant a jury trial is harmless er

ror only if the re cord shows that no material issues of fa ct exist and an instruc ted ver dict would have be en justified.” Halsell v. De h o yos , 810 S.W. 2d 37 1, 37 2 ( Te x. 19 91 ); see also In rePrudential , 148 S.W .3d at 138. The F allises asser t that their counte rcla im prese nts seven differe nt cause s of ac tion that are a ll fact sensitive: (1) brea ch of
co n t ra ct, (2) ne g lige nce, ( 3) bre ach of fiduciar y duty , (4) tre spass, (5) injunction, (6) exemplary dam a g e s , an d

( 7 ) a tt o r n e y ’ s f e e s . T h e A s s o c iati o nh a s n o t a r g u e d to th is c o u rt t

h a t t h e r e ar e no
m a t e r i a l f a c ti s s u e s o r

c o n t e s t e d

t h e F a l l i s e s ar g u m e n tt h a tt h e r e ar e f a c ti s s u e s t o s u

b m i tt o a j u r y. I n a dd iti on , a

re vie w o f t

he re c or d d oe s n ot ind ic a te that the re are no mate ri a l issu e s of fa c t th a t e xist.

C ONCL US I ON As a result of the fore g oing, we find the trial judg e abuse d his discretion in failing to set the
cas e o n th e ju

r y d o c k e t. F o r th e f

o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , w e c o n d it io n a ll y g r an t th e p e ti ti o nfor wr it of mandamus. We direc t J udg e Palmer to plac e the c as e o n its jury docket in ac corda

nce w ith the Fa llises’ written reque st. We a re confide nt Judge Palmer will a ct in a ccor dance with this opi nion, and the writ of mandamus will issue only if he fails to do so. The stay imposed by

this court’s orde r of Oc tober 23, 2008 is lifted. PER C URI AM