Court Opinion

ID: 9643289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:24:42.202854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:59.062909
License: Public Domain

NYE, Justice
(concurring).
Title to the land was held jointly by Marion Uehlinger and the minor children, Julia Maurine and Eleanor Elaine Uehlin-ger. Upon motion by the condemnor, while the condemnation matter was still in an administrative stage, the County Judge determined that there was a conflict of interest existing between the said minors and their guardian, whereupon, the court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the minors during the Commissioners’ hearing. The condemnor objected to the decision and award of the Commissioners and timely filed its objections requesting that the case be tried in County Court arid that the defendants be cited as required by law. No citation was issued or served on any of the defendants after the cause had been appealed; however, the defendant, Marion Uehlinger, individually and as guardian of the minors, voluntarily appeared in County Court. The minors were not present in court; they were not represented by a guardian ad litem; nor had service by citation been served upon them or their personal representative. The record does not elaborate on the conflict of interest between *435the guardian and the minors. The record does not show whether such conflict was over the amount due each owner, or the extent or nature of such conflict. There being, however, a predetermined conflict of interest between the minors and their guardian, the guardian could not then waive the issuance of citation for such minors, or make a voluntary appearance in their behalf. Until the Court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the minors, a guardian ad litem could not be appointed to represent them. Ginn v. Southwest Bitulithic Co., (Tex.Civ.App.1940), 149 S.W.2d 201, wr. dism., judg. corr.; Wright v. Jones, Tex.Comm.App., 52 S.W.2d 247, opinion approved by Sup.Ct. (1932); 43 C.J.S. Infants § 110 b, p. 288; 27 Tex.Jur.2d 591, § 319, Guardian and Ward.
Each party to the condemnation may insist and therefore be entitled to be compensated for his interest separately. At another trial, it should be determined (after jurisdiction has been invoked by citation and a guardian ad litem appointed to represent the minors) whether such minors should have the .value of their interest apportioned among them separately. White v. City of Waco, 171 S.W.2d 514, wr.ref. (Tex.Civ.App.1943.); City of Paris v. Tucker, 101 Tex. 99, 104 S.W. 1046 (1907) ; City of Houston v. Huber, 311 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Civ.App.1958).
Appellee argues in the alternative that if this Court should hold that the lack of service on the minors is fundamental error, the judgment should be set aside only as to them and not to Mrs. Uehlinger. The lower court did not obtain jurisdiction over the minor defendants. There is no way to determine from the record the extent of the conflict of interest between the several defendants, or upon what basis the judgment would be severable. Therefore, because the minors (when properly before the Court) may desire that their award be determined separately, justice would be best subserved by reversing and remanding the entire case.
Appellant having failed to properly perfect his error on Points 6 through 9, and because such errors complained of will not likely arise in the same manner upon another trial, I do not deem it necessary to discuss the other assignments.