| LEGAL TERMINOLOGY: venue mandamus | mandatory venue | permissive venue | motion to transfer venue | venue challenge | waiver of venue | venue vs. jurisdiction | timeliness of venue challenge | waiver of objection to venue | venue rules | forum selection clauses | mandamus granted | denied to enforce venue rule | contracted for venue | venue in family law cases | court of continuing jurisdiction | mandatory joinder of SAPCR to divorce suit | In Re Estate of Ortiz-Vasquez (pdf) (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 21, 2010)(Brown) (probate venue mandamus denied) MOTION OR WRIT DENIED: Opinion by Justice Brown 14-08-01035-CV In Re Estate of Jose Francisco Ortiz-Vasquez. a/k/a Jose F. Ortiz, a/k/a Jose Francisco Ortiz, a/k/a Francisco Ortiz, Deceased Appeal from Probate Court No 2 of Harris County Poock v. Washington Mutual Bank [WaMu] (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jul. 16, 2009)(Jennings) (venue caselaw, mandatory venue, transfer required) REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND REMAND CASE TO TC FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS: Opinion by Justice Jennings Before Justices Jennings, Keyes and Higley 01-08-00415-CV Steven Poock & David Edwards v. Washington Mutual Bank Appeal from 270th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Hon. Brent Gamble Garza v. Reed (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] Jul. 7, 2009)(Hudson) (DTPA claim against insurer of complained-of business fails on summary judgment; misrepresentation as to insurance coverage of buy-back guarantee)(no-evidence summary judgment affirmed) (motion to transfer venue for convenience) AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Hudson Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Hudson and Frost 14-08-00211-CV Joe M Garza, Pay Phone Owners Legal Fund, and Ernest R. Bustos v. Jack P. Reed and Houston Surplus Lines, Inc. Appeal from 434th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County In re Fort Bend County (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Feb 3, 2009)(Brown) (venue mandamus) MOTION OR WRIT GRANTED: Opinion by Justice Brown Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Guzman and Brown 14-08-00912-CV In Re Fort Bend County Appeal from 334th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Sharon McCally Concurring Opinion by Justice Guzman Kelly v. American Interstate Insurance Co. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 25, 2008)(Brown) (venue, MTV, exhaustion of administrative remedies, plea to the jurisdiction, workers comp, compensable injury, benefits denial, preauthorization) AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Jeff Brown Before Justices Brock Yates, Guzman and Brown 14-07-00083-CV Jimmy J. Kelly v. American Interstate Insurance Co., Hammerman & Gainer, Inc., and Sheryl Butman--Appeal from 334th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Sharon McCally In his first issue on appeal, Kelly argues that he was not given sufficient notice of the hearing on appellees' separate motions to transfer venue. Kelly asserts that the trial court's order was granted and conveyed to him only 29 days before the scheduled date of the hearing. As a result, he contends not only was he denied the required 45 days' notice of the hearing, but it was impossible for him to timely file a response in opposition to appellees' motions at least 30 days before the hearing. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 87(1). Inconsistent Statements on forum and jurisdiction in documents render forum selection ambiguous. Trial court properly denied motion to dismiss. Mandamus denied. In re Sterling Chemicals, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 7, 2008)(Hedges) (forum selection clause ambiguous, not enforced, mandamus denial) MOTION OR WRIT DENIED: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Hudson and Boyce 14-08-00280-CV In Re: Sterling Chemicals, Inc., Richard Crump, John Beaver, Resurgence Asset Management, LLC, Byron Haney and Paul Rostek Appeal from 212th District Court of Galveston County Trial Court Judge: Hon. Susan Elizabeth Criss Given the ambiguity in the forum-selection clause, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by denying relators' motions to dismiss. When a contract is ambiguous, the parties' intent is a determination left to the exclusive province of the fact finder. Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 395. We may not address disputed fact issues in an original mandamus proceeding. ...Given the ambiguity in the forum-selection clause, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by denying relators' motions to dismiss. When a contract is ambiguous, the parties' intent is a determination left to the exclusive province of the fact finder. Coker, 650 S.W.2d at 395. We may not address disputed fact issues in an original mandamus proceeding. Davenport v. Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4, 24 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); Brady v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 795 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding) (op. on reh'g). Venue ruling in JP Court reviewed de novo on appeal in county court Cramer v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 6, 2008)(Jennings) (denial of motion to transfer venue re determined de novo by county court on appeal)(appeals from justice court to county court) REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND REMAND CASE TO TC FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS: Opinion by Justice Jennings Before Justices Jennings, Hanks and Bland) 01-08-00270-CV Daniel Cramer and Saejin Cramer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Appeal from County Court at Law No 1 of McLennan County Trial Court Judge: Hon. Mike Freeman Texas Supreme Court Grants Mandamus Relief to enforce Forum Selection Clause in contract In re Lyon Financial Services, Inc., No. 07-0486 (Tex. June 20, 2008)(per curiam) (orig. proc.) (mandamus, forum selection clause, motion to dismiss improperly denied, forum selection clause enforced) In re Tracey Wade Mock (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] June 11, 2008)(per curiam denial of venue mandamus) DENY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: Per Curiam Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Keyes and Higley 01-08-00360-CV In re Tracey Wade Mock Appeal from 328th District Court of Fort Bend County Trial Court Judge: Hon. Ronald Pope Texas Supreme Court grants mandamus relief to keep case in court to which it was transferred, says Plaintiff may not nonsuit and refile in a different county is not permissible In re Team Rocket, LP, No. 06-0414 (Tex. May 23, 3008)(Opinion by Justice Green)(mandamus granted) (mandamus granted to enforce first transfer of venue, nonsuit and refiling in third county disapproved) Justice Wainwright delivered a concurring opinion, Satterwhite Aviation Service v. International Profit Associates, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 31, 2008)(Hanks) (venue law, forum selection clause) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Hanks Before Justices Nuchia, Hanks and Higley) 01-07-00053-CV Satterwhite Aviation Service v. International Profit Associates, Inc. Appeal from 190th District Court of Harris County (Judge Jennifer Elrod) Cantu v. Grossman (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 29, 2008)(Seymore) (venue law, foreign judgment, MTV) REVERSED AND REMANDED: Opinion by Justice Seymore Before Justices Frost, Seymore and Guzman 14-06-00078-CV Mark A. Cantu v. Howard S. Grossman, P.A. Appeal from 215th District Court of Harris County Dissenting Opinion by Justice Frost Scott v. Wichita County (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 18, 2007)(Hanks)(venue, prisoner suit) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Hanks Before Justices Taft, Hanks and Higley 01-06-00527-CV Michael Scott v. Wichita County and Whichita County Distric Attorney Barry Macha--Appeal from 400th District Court of Ft. Bend County (Hon. Clifford J. Vacek) Texas Supreme Court Grants Mandamus Relief to Enforce Mandatory Venue Provisions In Re Texas Department of Transportation (TxDoT), No. 06-0289 (Tex. Mar. 9, 2007)(per curiam)(mandamus granted to enforce mandatory venue provision of TTCA) In Re Gillespie County, No. 06-00052 (Tex. Mar. 9, 2007)(per curiam)(mandamus granted to enforce mandatory venue under TTCA) consolidated with In Re Texas Department of Transportation, No. 06-0289 (Tex. Mar. 9, 2007) In re Applied Chemical Magnesias Corp., No. 04-1119 (Tex. Aug. 31, 2006)(Justice Paul W. Green (venue, mandatory venue, permissive venue, MTV, real estate suits) Scott v. Farrar (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] May 31, 2007)(Keyes) (venue, pro se prisoner IFP suit, venue) AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Keyes Before Justices Nuchia, Keyes and Higley 01-06-00395-CV Michael Scott v. Joseph Farrar, Darryl Glenn and S. Whatley Appeal from 400th District Court of Ft. Bend County (Hon Clifford J. Vacek) In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court's venue was not a proper venue for appellant to have brought suit, which caused the trial court to render a void order. Appellant makes no complaint about the merits of the trial court's order of dismissal. "[A]n action that accrued while the plaintiff was housed in a facility operated by or under contract with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice shall be brought in the county in which the facility is located." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.019(a). Filing a lawsuit in a county of improper venue is not a jurisdictional defect that would render a trial court's actions void. See Gordon v. Jones, 196 S.W.3d 376, 383 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) ("Venue pertains solely to where a suit may be brought and is a different question from whether the court has 'jurisdiction of the property or thing in controversy.'"). "Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the court's power to hear a particular type of suit." Id. at 382. In contrast, venue "refers to the propriety of prosecuting, in a particular form, a suit on a given subject matter with specific parties, over which the forum must, necessarily, have subject-matter jurisdiction." Id. at 383. "Venue may and generally does refer to a particular county. . . ." Id. "Venue pertains solely to where a suit may be brought and is a different question from whether the court has jurisdiction of the property or thing in controversy." Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted). "Moreover, unlike subject-matter jurisdiction, which may be challenged at any time, venue may be waived if not challenged in due order and on a timely basis." Id. (citing former Tex. R. Civ. P. 86(1)) (internal citation omitted). "Because it may be waived, venue is not 'jurisdictional.'" Id. Appellant contends that because the William P. Clements unit, where appellant is incarcerated, is in Potter County, he should have filed his lawsuit there, rather than Fort Bend County, pursuant to section 15.019(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.019(a). We have previously held that filing suit in a different county, instead of in the venue mandated by section 15.019, neither deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction nor renders the trial court's order of dismissal void. (5) See Scott v. Gallagher, 209 S.W.3d 262, 264-65 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also In re Johnson, 12-07-00032-CV, 2007 WL 259255, at *1 (Tex. App.--Tyler Jan. 31, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op) ("Filing a lawsuit in a county of improper venue is not a jurisdictional defect that would render a trial court's actions void."). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not lack jurisdiction and, thus, its order of dismissal is not void. We overrule appellant's sole issue on appeal. First Court of Appeals Grants Mandamus to Enforce Mandatory Transfer of Venue In re Wilson (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 26, 2007)(Hanks)(family court had nondiscretionary duty to transfer case pursuant to mandatory venue statute in Family Code; denial of motion to transfer venue was error)(mandamus, venue, family law, SAPCR, modification) Venue was not timely challenged, dismissal order reversed Liu v CiCi Enterprises LP (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 9, 2007)(Opinion by Justice Guzman) Scott v. Wichita County (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 18, 2007)(Hanks)(venue, prisoner suit) |
| Forum and Venue Case Law from the Houston Courts of Appeals and from the Texas Supreme Court Houston Opinions |
