Court Opinion

ID: 9770550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:09:11.232977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:16.670308
License: Public Domain

MIRABAL, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. In granting mandamus reMef, the majority has looked only at the face of the pleadings, totally ignoring the evidence adduced at two hearings conducted by the trial judge.
After hearing the evidence, the trial judge concluded that relator was entitled to maintain the Ms pendens as to six properties; however, as to one property, a residential home, the trial judge concluded the Ms pen-dens should be released. This mandamus involves that one property only.
In their “Emergency Motion to Cancel Lis Pendens and Request for Sanctions,” the real parties in interest alleged:
Plaintiff by these claims tries to Mnk the properties owned by defendants to this action. Defendants submit that these allegations are without a factual or legal basis and have been filed purely to harass defendants. This type of bad faith pleading would support sanctions under Rule 13, as well as sanctions provided by Rule 215(2)(b) as provided by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
The trial judge heard evidence on this motion, and concluded it had merit as to one out of seven properties. In my opinion, the trial *26judge acted within his authority when he refused to look only at the plaintiff’s pleadings to determine whether the filing of lis pendens was appropriate as to all seven properties. The trial judge heard evidence to determine whether plaintiffs allegations as to any of the real properties were groundless.
Before we decide to conditionally issue a writ of mandamus directed to the trial judge, I believe we should review the evidence he heard and determine whether he abused his discretion when he concluded plaintiffs allegations, which on their face may authorize a lis pendens against the subject home, were actually groundless as to that specific home because the underlying bases for plaintiffs claims do not support such a lis pendens. Further, a review of the evidence may aid in determining whether, in fact, this case is governed by the recent holding of the supreme court in Flores v. Haberman, 38 Tex.Sup.CtJ. 1166, — S.W.2d - [1995 WL 453272] (August 1, 1995) (motion for rehearing pending).
Because the majority declines such a review, I dissent.