Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

MEMORANDUM=20 OPINION

Iglesia=20 Hispana Nueva Vida (=93Hispana=94) appeals a summary judgment = granted in favor=20 of Adolfo Rosin. Hispana contends the trial court erred in = granting=20 summary judgment because (1) its claims are not barred by res = judicata and=20 collateral estoppel and (2) material facts exist on its = claims. We=20 conclude that Hispana failed to brief its issue regarding = collateral=20 estoppel. As the trial court=92s summary judgment can stand = on the=20 issue that Hispana failed to brief, we affirm.

Background

=20 This is a church dispute. In 1982, the Newlife Church, also = known as=20 Iglesia Bautista Nueva Vida (=93Bautista=94), purchased property = located at=20 4110 Telephone Road in Houston, Texas. As a part of the = sale, the=20 Gulfgate Assembly of God Church executed a warranty deed to = Bautista and=20 Bautista executed a note for the purchase price. Bautista = operated=20 as a church under the leadership of its pastor, Adolfo = Rosin.

In 1991,=20 Bautista merged with the Church of God. As a part of the = merger,=20 Bautista conveyed all of its documents and assets, including = membership=20 and real estate, to the Church of God, and Bautista ceased to = exist. =20 The church also adopted the operation guidelines of the Church of=20 God. The Church of God recruited Reverend Daniel Melendez to = be=20 minister after the merger, and Rosin simultaneously left the = church. =20

When=20 Bautista transferred its assets to the Church of God in 1991, it = did not=20 properly convey the church property. The Church of God = remedied this=20 error by obtaining a warranty deed from Rosin, on behalf of = Bautista,=20 almost ten years later. The deed is dated February 2, 2001, = signed=20 by Rosin in his capacity as minister of Bautista, and states that = Rosin=20 received ten dollars in consideration. Rosin later testified = in his=20 deposition that he received no compensation for the execution of = the=20 deed. The church filed the deed in the Harris County = Clerk=92s office=20 on February 5, 2001. Around this time, conflict arose = between the=20 church=92s new minister, Melendez, and the Church of God. In = 2000,=20 Melendez filed articles of incorporation for a new entity, = =93Iglesia=20 Hispana Nueva Vida-Houston, Inc.=94 (Hispana) and procured a deed = purporting=20 to convey the property from Bautista to Hispana through its = purported=20 trustees Guadalupe Marquez, Heriberto Sanchez, Rosita Banda, and = Rogelia=20 Gamboa. This deed was not recorded until March 7, 2001, a = month=20 after the Church of God=92s deed. The two conflicting deeds = were the=20 subject of a prior suit (the =93deed litigation=94), in which the = Church of=20 God sought declaratory and injunctive relief to quiet title = against=20 Melendez and Hispana.[1]=20

In the deed=20 litigation, the Church of God brought claims against Melendez and = Hispana=20 for trespass to try title, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of = contract in addition to its request for declaratory relief. = The 55th=20 District Court of Harris County granted a default judgment in = favor of the=20 Church of God after the defendants failed to appear, declaring = valid the=20 deed signed by Rosin to the Church of God. The court further = declared that fee simple title of the property is held by the = Church of=20 God and that Melendez and Hispana hold no ownership interest in = the=20 property.[2]

Hispana=20 subsequently sued Rosin in the 151st District Court of Harris = County,=20 alleging Rosin wrongfully conveyed the property to third parties = without=20 Hispana=92s consent. In its petition, Hispana presents = itself as=20 =93Iglesia Hispana Nueva Vida Houston, Inc. (=91Church=92), = formerly known as=20 and successor in interest to the New Life Church.=94[3] =20 Hispana asserts legal title to the property by alleging that it = purchased=20 the property in 1982. Hispana also claims Rosin is = Hispana=92s former=20 minister, and that Rosin breached fiduciary duties owed to Hispana = when he=20 transferred the property to the Church of God. Based on = these=20 allegations, Hispana sued Rosin for claims of constructive fraud, = breach=20 of fiduciary duty, and conversion arising out of his conveyance of = the=20 property to the Church of God, and requests an accounting of the=20 consideration received by Rosin.

Rosin moved=20 for summary judgment, alleging that Hispana=92s claims are = prohibited by res=20 judicata and collateral estoppel. The court took the motion = under=20 advisement and allowed Hispana to take Rosin=92s deposition, = limited to his=20 involvement in the execution of the deed. Rosin=92s = deposition took=20 place in November 2004. Rosin then filed a no-evidence = motion on=20 Hispana=92s claims. The no-evidence motion argues Hispana = lacks=20 standing because it does not have a legal interest in the = property, since=20 it is not the same entity as Bautista, and that there is no = evidence that=20 Rosin received consideration for executing the deed, based on = Rosin=92s=20 deposition testimony. In response, Hispana submitted the = affidavits of=20 eight church members, contesting Rosin=92s testimony that Bautista = merged=20 its assets with the Church of God. The trial court granted = summary=20 judgment without stating the basis for its ruling.

Summary=20 Judgment

Standard of=20 Review

Rosin filed=20 both a traditional motion for summary judgment and a no-evidence = motion.=20 See Tex. R. = Civ.=20 P. 166a(c), (i). Under the traditional standard for = summary=20 judgment, a movant has the burden to show that no genuine issue of = material fact exists and that the trial court should grant = judgment as a=20 matter of law. Tex.=20 R. Civ. P.=20 166a(c); KPMG=20 Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Hous. Fin. Corp., 988=20 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex.=20 1999). =20 We=20 view all evidence in a light favorable to the nonmovant and = indulge every=20 reasonable inference in the nonmovant=92s favor. = Provident Life=20 & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. = 2003).=20 We review a no-evidence summary judgment de novo by = construing the=20 record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and = disregarding all=20 contrary evidence and inferences. King Ranch, Inc. v.=20 Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003). A no-evidence = summary=20 judgment is improperly granted when the respondent brings forth = more than=20 a scintilla of probative evidence that raises a genuine issue of = material=20 fact. See Tex. R.=20 Civ. P. 166a(i); Coastal Conduit & Ditching, Inc. v. = Noram=20 Energy Corp., 29 S.W.3d 282, 284-85 (Tex. App.=97Houston [14th = Dist.]=20 2000, no pet.). When, as=20 here, a trial court=92s order granting summary judgment does not = specify the=20 grounds relied upon, we affirm the summary judgment if any of the = summary=20 judgment grounds is meritorious. FM Props. Operating Co. = v. City=20 of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868, 873-74 (Tex. 2000).

Analysis

=20 As Rosin correctly observes, when multiple grounds for summary = judgment=20 exist and the trial court does not specify the ground on which the = summary=20 judgment was granted, an appellant must negate on appeal all = possible=20 grounds. Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, = 473=20 (Tex. 1995); Ellis v. Precision Engine Rebuilders, Inc., 68 = S.W.3d=20 894, 898 (Tex. App.=97Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). If = the=20 appellant fails to negate each possible ground upon which the = judgment may=20 have been granted, an appellate court must uphold the summary = judgment.=20 See Ellis, 68 S.W.3d at 898.

=20 Rosin moved for summary judgment against Hispana on the grounds of = res=20 judicata and collateral estoppel, and submitted a no-evidence = motion on=20 Rosin=92s claims of constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, = and=20 conversion, attacking specific elements of these claims. The = summary=20 judgment did not specify the particular grounds on which it was = rendered;=20 therefore, Hispana must defeat each of these grounds.[4]=20 See Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex.=20 1989).

=20 Rule 31.8(h) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires an = appellant=92s brief to contain =93a clear and concise argument for = the=20 contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to = the=20 record.=94 Tex. R. = App. P.=20 38.1(h). Here, Hispana offers no legal analysis, = argument,=20 citations to the record, nor any authorities to support its = contention on=20 appeal that its claims are not barred by collateral estoppel.[5]=20 Under these circumstances, we conclude Hispana has failed to = adequately brief this ground. See Williams v. Crum & = Forster=20 Commercial Ins., 915 S.W.2d 39, 42=9643 (Tex. App.=97Dallas = 1995) (noting=20 that issue is waived when appellant fails to cite legal authority = in=20 support of issue, as required by rules of appellate procedure, and = thereby=20 affirming summary judgment because appellant had not properly = challenged=20 each ground asserted in support of summary judgment), rev=92d = on other=20 grounds, 955 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. 1997).

Because the trial = court could=20 have granted summary judgment on the basis that these claims were = barred=20 by collateral estoppel, and Hispana did not brief this ground, we = affirm=20 the summary judgment. See Ellis, 68 S.W.3d at 898; = Goudeau=20 v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., No. 01-04-01168-CV, = 2006 WL=20 2506958, at *3 (Tex. App.=97Houston [1st Dist.], Aug. 31, 2006, = pet. filed)=20 (affirming summary judgment because appellant did not specifically = challenge every possible ground for trial court=92s summary = judgment=20 ruling); McIntyre v. Wilson, 50 S.W.3d 674, 681=9682 (Tex.=20 App.=97Dallas 2001, pet. denied) (upholding summary judgment = because trial=20 court could have granted summary judgment on ground that appellant = failed=20 to adequately brief, by offering no discussion on issue, making = passing=20 reference to ground in other issues, and citing generally to law = review=20 article).

Conclusion

We affirm the = judgment of the=20 trial court.

All pending motions = are=20 dismissed as moot.

Jane Bland

&= nbsp; &n= bsp; &nb= sp; &nbs= p; =20 Justice

Panel consists of = Chief Justice=20 Radack and Justices Jennings and Bland.