Court Opinion

ID: 9555548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-14 10:07:12.956211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:20.749482
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________
          No. 02-22-00462-CV
     ___________________________

        DAVID CLARK, Appellant

                      V.

              A.H., Appellee

  On Appeal from the 325th District Court
          Tarrant County, Texas
      Trial Court No. 325-725380-22

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Walker, JJ.
 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell
                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

      David Clark appeals from a Family Code protective order granted to A.H. In a

single issue, he contends that the trial court erred by determining that venue was

proper in Tarrant County. Because we determine that Clark waived his venue

challenge, we affirm the protective order.

                               Procedural Background

      A.H. filed a pro se application for a Family Code protective order. She alleged

that Clark had physically assaulted her twice at their residence, which she alleged was

located in Tarrant County.

      The trial court issued a temporary ex parte protective order and then set a final

hearing for November 17, 2022. Clark filed an original answer on November 7, 2022.

In it, he entered a general denial; specifically denied that A.H. could prove a protective

order’s elements; and sought attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs. Seven days later,

Clark filed an amended answer with the same allegations but with the following

addition: “Respondent challenges venue in Tarrant County. The proper venue is in

Johnson County, Texas.” In his prayer, Clark asked the trial court to “dismiss th[e]

suit for lack of proper venue.”

      At the final hearing, Clark again raised the venue issue; his counsel stated that

the alleged incidents had occurred in Johnson County, advocated that the case should

be heard in Johnson County, and told the trial judge, “[O]ur position today is that

                                             2
they may refile in Johnson County . . . .” A.H.’s counsel1 responded that Clark had

waived the venue complaint by failing to include it in his original answer. Clark then

argued that because his amended answer supplanted his original answer, see Tex. R.

Civ. P. 65, he had not waived his venue challenge. The trial court let the case proceed:

“You can put on your testimony about the Tarrant County family violence, and if it

doesn’t hold up then I’m going to recess the hearing and move it down to Johnson

County.”

      At the hearing, A.H. testified that when she filed the application, she thought

that their home’s physical address––where she alleged the family violence had

occurred––was in Tarrant County, but she later learned that it is located in Johnson

County.

                              Venue Challenge Waived

      Title 4 protective-order proceedings are subject to Civil Procedure Rule 86. See

Guerrero v. A.C.G., No. 08-22-00042-CV, 2023 WL 2589697, at *1 (Tex. App.—El

Paso Mar. 21, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.); Magill v. Sheffield, 612 S.W.2d 677, 681 (Tex.

App.––Dallas 1981, no writ). According to Rule 86(1), a party waives a venue

objection if he does not file a written motion “prior to or concurrently with any other

plea, pleading or motion except a [Rule 120a] special[-]appearance motion.” Tex. R.

Civ. P. 86(1). Thus, Rule 86(1) “demands a due order of pleading to prevent the court

from proceeding on ‘matters related to the merits’ before determining whether venue

      1
       By this time, A.H. had engaged counsel.

                                           3
is proper.” Gordon v. Jones, 196 S.W.3d 376, 384 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,

no pet.) (quoting Glover v. Moser, 930 S.W.2d 940, 941 (Tex. App.––Beaumont 1996,

writ denied)). A party who files a general denial before filing a venue challenge waives

that challenge. See id.; see also Goepp v. Comerica Bank & Tr., N.A., No. 03-19-00485-

CV, 2021 WL 2878562, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin July 9, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.);

Sutton v. State Bar of Tex., 750 S.W.2d 853, 855 (Tex. App.––El Paso 1988, writ denied);

cf. Wade v. TBF Fin., LLC, No. 03-18-00370-CV, 2019 WL 1051599, at *1–2 (Tex.

App.––Austin Mar. 6, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that party who challenged

venue contemporaneously with answer but who sought dismissal instead of venue

transfer waived venue challenge).

       Here, Clark first challenged venue in his amended answer,2 filed seven days

after his original answer, which had included general and specific denials, as well as a

request for attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs. And although in his amended answer

Clark identified Johnson County as the proper venue location, he never asked the trial

       2
        Generally, an amended pleading supersedes the original. E.g., Denton Cnty. Elec.
Co-op., Inc. v. Hackett, 368 S.W.3d 765, 772 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, pet. denied)
(citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 65). But a later-filed amended pleading cannot excuse a party
from following a due-pleading-order requirement imposed by another rule. Cf. Napoli,
Bern, Ripka, Shkolnik & Assocs., LLP, No. 14-18-00420-CV, 2019 WL 2589885, at *6
(Tex. App.––Houston [14th Dist.] June 25, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating––in
context of holding that amended special appearance, which omitted exhibits attached
to original special appearance, did not supplant original’s exhibits––that “a special
appearance provides a means to avoid being subjected to or having to file a pleading”
and citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a, which subjects special-appearance motions to due
order of pleadings); Mann v. Kendall Home Builders Constr. Partners I, Ltd., 464 S.W.3d 84,
91 (Tex. App.––Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 2, 2015, no pet.) (holding that Rule 65 did
not prohibit Rule 13 sanctions based on original-but-later-amended pleading).

                                            4
court to transfer the case. Thus, Clark waived his venue challenge and sole appellate

complaint. We overrule his issue.

                                     Conclusion

      Having overruled Clark’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                     /s/ Wade Birdwell

                                                     Wade Birdwell
                                                     Justice

Delivered: August 10, 2023

                                          5