i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 59 0- CV J ohn F LANAG AN , Appellant
v . CE NI Z O IN VE STM EN TS, L TD
. an d H ar r y F
. T h o mp s o nIII , Appellee s Fr om the 293rd Judi cial District Court, Z avala County , Texas Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 03 -0 6- 10 73 6- Z CV Honora ble Cy nthia L . Muniz , J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: J une 16, 2010 AFF I RMED J ohn Flana g an appe als the summary judgme nt g rante d in favor of C enizo I nvestments, L td.
and Ha rr y F . T ho mps on

I I I . We a ff

ir m. BACK GR OUND I n 1968, L eroy

Br axdale built a runway

and air plane ha ng ars on proper

ty owned by

Warren Wagne r and his wife Mary . Shortly there afte r, L eroy , Mary , and Warre n formed B raxdale Aviation, I nc . to op e rate an a ir

po rt and crop du sti ngbu sin e ss o n th e Wagne rs ’ p ro pe rt y . L e ro y ow ne d f if ty04

- 08

- 00 59 0- CV

1 ... M ary Jo W agner w as W arren W agner’ s second w i f e af t er M ary W agner pa ss ed away. B art W agner i s M ary and W arren W agner’ s son.

- 2- perc ent of the c ompany

and Mar y and Warren eac h owned twenty -five perc ent. I n 1969, Mary and Warren e ntere d into a

lease ag ree ment with Brax dale Aviation, I nc., g iving the c ompany full use of the ir pr op e rt y . T he le a se pr ov ide d in

pa rt : For and in consider ation of the use of said proper

ty an d p remises, L essee [Braxdale Aviation, Inc.] ag ree s to p ay L es s o r [ Mary and Warre n Wagne r] Ten Dollars ($1 0
. 0 0 ) p e r

y e a r an d o th e r v a lu a b le c o n s id e r a ti o nr e n d e r e d b y s e r v ic e s of L e r o y B r a x d a l e i n d i v i d

u a l l y. T h i s l e a s e s h a l l c o m m e n c e o n t h e 1 s td ay o f J anu ar y, 19 69 , a nd la st f or nin e ty -n ine (9 9) y e ars . P u rsuant to t he lea se, L eroy provided ser

vices to Warre n and Mar

y including ma intaining, f

ly i n g, and hang aringWarren’ s airplane
. I n 1998, L eroy

sold his interest in B raxdale Aviation, Inc. to the two other stockholders of the company (by this time Ba rt Wagne r and Mary J o Wagne r 1 wer e the succe ssor owner s of the re al proper ty and stockholder s of B raxdale Aviation, Inc. bec ause Warr en and Mary had passe d awa y ). Br axdale Aviation, I nc. wa s then dissolved. After September 21, 1998, L eroy stopped pay

ing the $1 0. 00 fe e and

no lon g e r p ro vid e d a

ny se rv ic e s to anyon e a t th e a ir po rt
. F lana g an c la ims he purc ha se d B art Wagne r’ s f

if ty pe rc e nt o wn e rs hip int e re st i n th e le a se
s o me ti me a f

te r B art a c qu ir e d

h is inte r e s t i nth e la

n d an d th e le a s e . I n2 0 0 1 an d

2 0 0 2 , Ce n iz o I nvestments, L td. purcha sed portions of t he re al prope rty wher e the a irport was loc ated, a nd in 2005 Ha rr y F . Tho mps on , I I I purc ha se d th e re ma ini ngpo rt ion fr om B art . A ft e r t

he sa le of the re a l pr op e rt

y to Ceniz o and Thompson, Fla nag an attempted to continue to use t he property as an a irport, claiming he owne d a fifty

perc ent intere st in the lease.04

- 08

- 00 59 0- CV

2 ... F la n a g a n a sse rte d in h is o p e n ing b rie f t h a t t h e re w e re d o c u m e n ts m issin g fro m the c le rk ’s re c o rd . W e r emanded t hi s ca s e t o t he t r i al cour t t o det er mi ne whi ch af f i davi t s t he part i es f

i l ed an d whe n t hey wer e f i l ed. T he t r i al c o u rt m a d e fi n d ing s o f f a c t re g a rd ing the a ff

id a v its an d the c le rk ’s re c o rd w a s su p p le m e n te d a c c o rd ing ly.

- 3- Cenizo filed suit ag ainst Flana g an and T hompson seeking a dec laratory judgme nt reg arding the viability

of the lea se, and a sserted the lease terminated e ither for failure o f co n s i deration, by share hold e r c o n s e n t, o r a c c o r d in g to th e te r ms o f th e le a s e . Ce n iz o p le d in th e a lt e r n a ti ve for a decla ration of the ownership of the lease hold and a wr it o f p ar t i t i o n or a judicia l forec losure. Thompson cross cla imed and counte r-c lai m ed for ter mination of the lease and for decla ratory j u d gm en t
. Ac t i n g pro se, Flana g an cr oss claimed and c ounter-c laimed ag ainst Ce n iz o a n d T h o mp s on
a sse rt ingne g lig e nc e , n e g lig e nc e pe r s e , “d e fe c ts in eq uip me nt, ” nu isa

nc e , nuis anc e pe r s e , tr e sp a ss, g ross neg lige nce, un

j ust enrichment, “ conduct of a landlord,” and “inter fer ence with lawful possession of a lea se by

illega l acts under

the color of

law.” Ce nizo and

Th omp so n

f i l e d a n o e v i d e n c e m oti on

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt o n F lana g an’ s c ro ss claims and c ounter-c laims and a traditional motion for summ ary judgme nt seeking a dec laration that the le a se wa s te rm inate d. F lana g an ti me ly fi le d a re sp on se and

a tta c he d a ff

ida vit s and ph oto g ra ph s. 2 On the day

of the hear ing, Flana g an filed a motion for continuance and anothe r af fidavit. Cenizo and Th omp so n f

ile d o bje c tio ns to Flana g an’ s e vid e nc e , w hic h w e re su sta ine d b y the tr ia l c ourt
. Flana g an’s motion for c o ntinuance w as denie d and the tria l court g rante d summary judgme nt and decla red: I T I S ORDERED, ADJ UDGED AND DE C R EED that the lea se date d J anuar y 1, 1969 betwee n Warren W agner and wife Mary Wagne r, as lessor , and Br axdale Aviation, I nc., as le ssee, is terminated and is void and of no further forc e and e ff e c t.04

- 08

- 00 59 0- CV

- 4- T h e tr ia l c o u rt a ls o r e n d e r e d a ta k e n o th in g ju d g me n t o n F la n a g an ’ s c la im s f

o r a f f ir mati ve re lief. F lana g an a

pp e a le d th e jud g me nt. DI SCU SSIO N Issues on A

ppeal Flana g an filed a pro se brief in this appe al

. We rec og nize that although pr o s e pleading s and briefs a re to be l i b er al l y const rued, a pro se litigant is held to the same sta ndards a s licensed attorney s and must comply with applicable la

ws and rul es o f proc edure
. Mansfield State Bank v

. Cohn , 57 3 S.W. 2d 18 1, 18 4- 85 (T e x. 19 78 ); Strange v. Cont’l Cas. Co. , 126 S.W .3d 676, 677-78 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas 2004, pe t. denied), cert. de nied, 543 U. S. 107 6 (20 05 ). Te xas Rule of Ap pe llate Procedur e 38.1(f

) provides that the statement of a n issue will be treated as cove ring ever y subsidiary question that is fairly

included. “A

ppellate br iefs ar e construe d rea sonably , y et liberally , so that the rig ht to appellate revie w i s not lost by waiver .” Perry v . Cohen , 272 S.W .3d 585, 587 (Tex. 2008). Whenever

possible we must rea ch the mer its of an appe al. Id
. We c on str

ue F lana g an’ s pro se appellate brief a s raising three iss ues cha lleng ing the trial
c ourt ’s : (1 ) de nia l of F lana g an’ s mot ion fo r c on tin ua nc e ; (2 ) de c laratio n that the le a se a g re e me nt i s terminated; a

nd, (3) g rantingsummary j udg ment and re nderinga take nothing judg ment on Flana g an’s c laims for af

firmative r elief.

Motion for Continuan ce On the day of the summary judgme nt he aring , Flana g an filed a motion for continuance of the he ari ngon Ce nizo and Th omp so n’ s motio n for summa ry jud g me nt. F lana g an a

rgue d h e ne e de d ti me to take depositions and obtain additional af fidavits. Flana g an also claimed that due to hi s advanc ed ag e and w ork sche dule he wa s not able to complete the response befor e the he aring
.04

- 08

- 00 59 0- CV

- 5- We reviewthe tri al court’s denial of a motion for continuance under a clea r abuse of discretion standa

rd. J oev . Two Thi rty

Nin e J oin t V e ntu re , 145 S.W .3d 150, 161 (Tex. 2004). A trial
c ourt a bu se s it s d isc re tio n w he n it re a c he s a de c isi on so arb itr ary and unre a so na ble a s to a mou

nt t o a cle ar and prejudicia l error of law. BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W .3d 789, 800 (Tex. 2002). We consider the fol lowing none x clusive fa ctors whe n decidingwhether a trial c ourt
a bu se d it s d isc re tio n b y de nying a mot ion fo r co nti nu anc e to c on du c t a dd iti on a l di sc ov e ry : th e le ng th of time the ca se has been on file; the mater iality and purpose of the discove ry soug ht; and whether the pa rt y se e kin gthe c on tin

ua nc e ha s e xer c is ed d

ue dil ig e nc e to o bta in t

he dis c ov e ry

so ug ht. Perrotta v. Farmers Ins. Exc h ., 47 S.W .3d 569, 576 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2001, no pet.). Whe n the mot ion fo r summa ry jud g me nt wa s f

ile d, thi s c a se ha d b e e n o n f ile fo r f ive y e ars . F lana g an w a s g ive n th ir

ty -t hr e e da y s n oti c e of

the he ari ng . In his a ff

ida vit , F lana g an d id n ot e xpla in the mater iality

of the a dditional discovery he cla imed he needed in order to respond to the moti on fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. F lana g an a dmi tte d in his mot ion that he ha d no e xcu se fo r no t ob ta ini ngthi s dis c ov e ry e arl ie r o the r t

ha n h is a g e and

his pr e se nt w or

klo a d. B a se d o n th e re c or d w e c ann ot h old that the trial cour

t committed a clea

r abuse of discre tion in deny ing F lanag an a c ontinuance. Trad itiona l Summ ar

y Jud gment Ce nizo and

Th omp so n f

ile d a mot ion fo r summa

ry jud g me nt s e e kin g a

de c lara tio n th e le a se was ter minated bec ause: (1) there was a failure of consider ation for the lease ; (2) the pur pose of the le a s e w a s n o lo n g e r

p o s s ib le ; a

n d , ( 3 ) th e le s s e e ’ s s to c kh o ld e r s c o n s e n te d to th e te r mi n a ti o n . Ce n iz o
and Th omp so n a lso so ug ht a d e c laratio n th a t F lana g an d id n ot h a ve an inte re st i n th e le a se be c a us e the lease included a non-assig nable persona l se rvice s ag ree ment. The trial c ourt g rante d summary04

- 08

- 00 59 0- CV

- 6- judgme nt and dec lare d the lease terminated, but did not rec ite in the judgme nt th e b asis for terminating the lease
. A tr a d it io n a l s u mm ar

y ju d g me n t r e qu ir e s th e mo v an t t o e s ta b li s hth a t t

h e r e is n o g e nuine issue of mater ial fac t and that he is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law. T EX . R. C IV . P. 166a(c) ; KPM G P e at M ar wic k v . H arris on Co

. Hous . F

in. Cor p ., 988 S.W .2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999). The
mov ant ha s the burd e n to c on c lus ive ly dis pr ov e on e e le me nt of the c ha lle ng e d c a us e of a c tio n o r t o conclusively

prove all of the e lements of an a ffirmative defe nse. Pu ste jov sk yv . R ap id-

Am . Co rp ., 35 S .W. 3d

64 3, 64 5- 46 (T e x. 20 00 ); W ornick Co. v. Casas , 8 5 6 S. W. 2 d 7 3 2 , 7 3 3 ( T e x. 1 9 9 3). Evidence favor able to the non-movant will be taken a s true, and e very rea sonable infe renc e and a ny doubts will be resolved in the non-mova nt’s favor
. Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co. , 690 S.W .2d 546, 54 8- 49 (T e x. 19 85 ). A m a tte r i s con c lus ive ly e sta bli sh e d if re a so na

ble pe op le c ou ld n ot d if

fe r a s to the conc lusion to be drawn f rom the evide nce. City of Keller v. W ilson , 1 6 8 S. W. 3 d

8 0 2 , 8 1 4 ( T e x. 2005). Cenizo and Thompson sough t a d ec l aration that the lease w as terminate d for f ailure of consideration. Failure of consider ation occur s when, due to a superve ning cause afte r an a g ree ment is reac hed, the pr omised perf ormanc e fa ils. City

of T heColony v. N. T

e x . M un . W ate r D ist ., 272 S.W. 3d 69 9, 73 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 2 00 8, pe t. d ism ’d ); U. S. Ba nk , N. A. v . Pre

sti geFo rd Ga rla nd Ltd . P ’s hip , 170 S.W .3d 2 7 2 , 279 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pe t.). Fa ilure of consideration oc curs beca use of subseque nt events. See City of The Colony , 2 72 S.W. 3d a t 73 3; U.S. Bank, N.A. , 170 S.W .3d at 279. For example, one party ’s failure to perfor m its obl iga

tions under the ag ree m en t m ay re sult in t he other party ’s fa ilure to rec eive the c onsideration set for th in the ag ree ment. See City of T

he Colony , 2 72 S.W. 3d

a t 73 3; U.S. Bank, N.A. , 170 S.W .3d at 279.04

- 08

- 00 59 0- CV

3 ... B ecause we ho l d the l ease ter m i nat ed for f ai l ure of co nsi d erat i o n, we need not ad d res s whether any of t he o the r g ro u n d s su p p o rt the trial c o u rt’s su m m a ry j u d g m e n t.

- 7- The a irport lease specific ally required t h e lessee pr ovide a $10.00 y ear ly fee and “othe r valuable c onsideration re ndere d by service s of L eroy Br axdale individually .” L eroy paid the $10.00 fee and provide d persona l services t o W arren such a s flying a nd maintaining his plane . I n 1998, L eroy sold his int ere st in Brax dale Aviation, I nc., and the company was dissolved the following y ear . L e ro y c e a se d p ayingany

mon e y or pr ov idi ngse rv ic e s und e r t he le a se wh e n h e so ld h is i nte re st i n t h e c o mp an y. The summary

judgme nt evidence conclusively establishes t h at afte r 1998 there was no consideration provided for the lease . L eroy stopped providing individual services to Warr en in 1991 beca use Warre n sold his plane. The dissolution of B raxdale Aviation, I nc. preve nted the company from providingany

consideration required by the lease . L ikewise, L eroy co u l d no longe r per form service s beca

use the c ompany ’s airpla nes a n d other prope rty

wer e sold when the company was dissolved. L eroy ’s fa ilure to perf orm persona l service s and the company ’s non-pa y ment of re nt resulted in fa ilure of the c onsideration re quired by the lease
. See City of T he Colony , 272 S.W .3d at 73 3; U.S. Bank, N.A. , 170 S.W .3d at 279. Flana g an did not raise any materia l fac t issues reg arding the considera

tion r equire d under the lease , or the subsequent events whic h preve nted per formanc e under the lease ag ree ment. We hold the lease te rminated for failure of consider ation and summary judgme nt was prope r. 3 No Ev idenc eMo tio n f or Summ ar y Jud gment Cenizo and Thompson moved for summary judgme nt on eac h of Flanag an’s c ross claims and counter -cla ims, asserting there is no evidence to raise a g enu i n e i s s u e o f mater ial fac t as to the04

- 08

- 00 59 0- CV

- 8- essential ele ments of ea ch cla im. A no-evidenc e summary judgme nt motion must ex plicitly asser t that th e re is n o e vid e nc e of one or mo re sp e c if

ic a lly -i de nti fi e d e le me nts of the op po ne nt’ s c la im. T EX . R. C IV . P. 16 6a (i ) c mt. (1 99 7) ; Or tiz v . Co lli ns , 203 S.W .3d 414, 425 (Tex. App.—Houston [14 D ist .] 20 06 , n o p e t.) ; Cmty. Initiatives, Inc. v . Chase Bank of Tex. , 1 5 3 S. W. 3 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 9 ( T e x. Ap p. —E l Pa so 20 04 , n o p e t.) ; Callaghan Ranch, Ltd. v. Ki llam , 53 S.W .3d 1, 3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied) . The mot ion must be specific in cha lleng ing the evidentiar y support for an ele ment of a c laim or d ef en s e; conc lusory

motions or ge nera l no evidence challeng es to an opponent’s case are not authorized. Se e Or tiz , 203 S.W. 3d a t 42 5; Cmty. Initiatives, Inc ., 153 S.W .3d at 279-80. Onc e the movant files a motion for no evidenc e summary judgme nt, the non-movant has the burde n to produce summary judgme nt evidence raisinga g enuine issue of material f act on the challeng ed ele ment. Id .; Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway , 135 S.W .3d 598, 601 (Tex. 2004). Howe ver, the non-movant is not require d to marshal its proof but only to present some e vidence of probative value raising a fac t issue a bout which re asonable minds could differ. T EX . R. C IV . P. 16 6a (i ) c mt. (1 99 7) ; F o rd M o to r Co. , 1 3 5 S
. W
. 3 d at 601. The mova nt is entitl ed to summary judgme nt if the opponent fa ils to produce leg ally sufficie nt evidence to support its theory of liability

or def ense a fter adequate time for discove ry . T EX . R. C IV . P. 16 6a (i ). We v ie w the e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t favor able to the non- movant and disreg ard a ll contrary evidenc e and inf

ere nces. King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman , 118 S.W .3d 742, 750-51 (Te x . 2003). F la n a g ana s s e rts th e no evidenc e mo ti o nf o r s u mm ar y ju d g me n t w a s c o n c lu s o r y . We disag ree . The no e vidence motion addresses e ach c ause of action and spe cifica lly

identifies the element of

eac h cause of action for which there is no evidence . The motion was not conc lusory
. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 16 6a (i ); Or tiz , 2 03 S.W. 3d a t 42 5; se e als o Dod

d v. City of B e v e rly

Hi lls , 78 S.W .3d04

- 08

- 00 59 0- CV

4 ... Fl ana gan comp l ai ns t hat he s houl d hav e been p r ovi ded an op po r t un i t y t o amend hi s pl eadi ng af t er t he t r i al c o u rt grant ed C eni zo and T ho m p son’ s special excep t i o ns. B ecause we hol d C eni zo and T ho m p son were ent itl e d to sum m ary jud gm en t o n a l l o f F l an ag an ’ s claim s, we ne ed no t ad d ress the tri al co urt’ s ruli ng s o n sp ec i al exc ep t i o ns.
5 ... Fl an ag an al s o r ai s es i s s u es con ce r n i n g t h e t r i al cou r t ’ s ev i den t i ar y r u l i n g s on s ev er al af f i dav i t s . W e do n ot d eci d e t hese i ss ues beca use, even i f we co nsi d ered t he af

f i d avi t s i n t hei r ent i ret y , t hey d o not rai se a f act i ss ues on t he f ail ure o f co nsid era t i o n o r t he ch all en ge d elem en t s o f F l an ag an ’ s aff

i rm ati ve claim s.

- 9- 509, 513 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. denie d)( p u rp o s e o f spec ificity require ment is to provide op po si ng part y

fa ir no tic e of e le me nts on

wh ic h it mus t pr od

uc e so me e vid e nc e ); Dominguez v

. Payne , 112 S.W .3d 866, 868 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)(specific attack on the evidentiar y components not nec essar y for no e vidence motion for summary judgme nt). Summary judgme nt w as proper on all of Flana g an’s alleg ed cause s of action
. Fl an ag an’s response to the no evidenc e motion for summary judgme nt did not connec t any specific fac t to the specific ally challeng ed element of hi s cause s of ac tion. See Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. v. Johnson , 7 S.W .3d 862, 869 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1999), aff’d on other grounds , 73 S.W .3d 193, 21 1 ( Te x. 20 02 ); Guthrie v. Suiter , 934 S.W .2d 820, 826 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1996, no writ). Thus, Flana g an failed to raise a fac t issue on any

of the c halleng ed ele ments in the no evidenc e mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. 4 Summary judgme nt is affirmed. 5
Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice