Opinion issued=20
December 21, 2007
In=20
The
Court of=20
Appeals
For The
First =
District of=20
Texas
NO.=20
01-07-00900-CV
DEWAYNE=20
CHARLESTON, APPELLANT
V.
WALLER =
INDEPENDENT=20
SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE
On =
Appeal from the=20
155th Judicial District Court
Waller =
County,=20
Texas
Trial =
Court Cause=20
No. 07-08-18984
O P I =
N I O=20
N
<=
/SPAN>In this accelerated bond validation =
suit, ![3DFootnote](3D"")
appellant, DeWayne Charleston, appeals =
the=20
judgment of the trial court that granted a final judgment in favor =
of=20
appellee, Waller Independent School District =
(=E2=80=9CWISD=E2=80=9D) and the orders of=20
the trial court requiring him to post security and dismissing him =
from the=20
proceedings. In five issues on appeal, Charleston argues that (1) =
the bond=20
election and sale of the bonds should be voided; (2) the trial =
court=20
lacked authority to enjoin proceedings in federal court; (3) the =
trial=20
court erred by ordering the Attorney General to approve the bonds; =
(4) the=20
trial court erred in declaring that WISD was entitled to state =
debt-relief=20
funds; and (5) the trial court should not have required Charleston =
to post=20
bond.
<=
/SPAN>We=20
affirm in part and dismiss for want of jurisdiction in=20
part.
Background
<=
/SPAN>On=20
May 12, 2007, WISD voters approved the sale of school bonds valued =
at=20
$49.29 million for the =E2=80=9Cconstruction of a new elementary =
school,=20
conversion of Waller Junior High and Schultz Middle School to 6-8 =
grade=20
campuses, addition of office space for technology, renovation on =
all seven=20
existing campuses, technology improvements, purchase [of] school =
buses,=20
and the construction [of] a new District stadium.=E2=80=9D =
<=
/SPAN>On=20
August 9, 2007, Charleston filed an Original Petition, Application =
for=20
Temporary Restraining Order, and Application for Temporary =
Injunction in=20
the 151st Judicial District Court of Harris County =
to invalidate the bonds on the ground =
that WISD=20
had violated the Texas Open Meetings Act
(=E2=80=9CTOMA=E2=80=9D). =
Charleston=E2=80=99s original petition =
alleged that WISD=20
failed to comply with TOMA because WISD =E2=80=9Chas not posted =
notice of its=20
meetings with the Waller County Clerk=E2=80=99s office. =
Furthermore, between=20
January 1 and July 30, 2007, the Waller ISD Board of Trustees held =
at=20
least fifteen (15) specially called meetings, all of which related =
to=20
passage and implementation of a $49 million dollar bond issue for =
new=20
construction and renovations within Waller ISD, and none of which =
were=20
properly posted.=E2=80=9D He also asserted that WISD had scheduled =
the election on=20
May 12, 2007, =E2=80=9Cfour days after the close of the Spring =
Semester at Prairie=20
View A&M University. In other words, Defendants scheduled the =
election=20
on a day when the predominantly African-American student body of =
Prairie=20
View A&M University would be out of town.=E2=80=9D Charleston =
also alleged=20
that the May 12, 2007 election was not pre-cleared by the =
Department of=20
Justice=E2=80=99s Voting Rights Section.
<=
/SPAN>In=20
the declaratory judgment portion of his pleading, Charleston asked =
the=20
court to =E2=80=9Cdeclare that all votes taken by Defendant Waller =
ISD during=20
special meetings called for the Year 2007 be declared invalid and =
void,=20
including, but not limited to the calling of any special =
elections, the=20
purchase of any school bonds or real estate, and the awarding of =
any=20
contracts, relating to any new construction or renovation projects =
for=20
Waller ISD.=E2=80=9D He asked that the May 12, 2007 bond election =
be declared void=20
because it violated section 11.0581 of the Education =
Code.=20
<=
/SPAN>On=20
August 20, 2007, because of Charleston=E2=80=99s suit in Harris =
County, WISD filed=20
the instant action for an expedited declaratory judgment in Waller =
County
to validate the bonds that the voters =
had=20
approved.
<=
/SPAN>On=20
August 21, 2007, a temporary injunction hearing was held in =
Charleston=E2=80=99s=20
Harris County suit before Judge Caroline Baker. At the hearing, =
Charleston=20
argued that section 551.054 of the Government Code, which requires =
that=20
notice of certain state political subdivisions be posted with the =
county=20
clerk,
should be construed together with =
section 551.051,=20
the section of the Code which requires that notice of school =
district=20
meetings be placed in the school district=E2=80=99s central =
administrative=20
office.
The parties do not dispute that the =
Harris County=20
court denied Charleston=E2=80=99s motion for temporary=20
injunction.
<=
/SPAN>Charleston=20
then intervened in the instant case, WISD=E2=80=99s declaratory =
judgment suit in=20
Waller County (the Waller County suit), by filing a motion to =
dismiss on=20
September 21, 2007. He did not seek a temporary injunction in this =
suit=20
against WISD=E2=80=99s issuance of the school bonds. On the day of =
trial in WISD=E2=80=99s=20
Waller County suit, Charleston also filed a federal suit, =
Jackson v.=20
WISD.
<=
/SPAN>The=20
declaratory judgment action filed by WISD in Waller County was =
tried on=20
September 24, 2007. At the opening of the trial, the court =
permitted=20
Charleston to argue that this suit should be abated during the =
pendency of=20
the federal suit he had filed that morning. Charleston argued that =
he had=20
raised issues for the first time in the federal suit =
=E2=80=9Cwhich will take=20
priority over this lawsuit=E2=80=9D and that his federal claims =
could not be=20
consolidated with the claims in state court. The trial court =
declined to=20
abate the state court case on =E2=80=9Cthe mere filing of a =
federal action and not=20
the action of a federal court itself.=E2=80=9D It overruled =
Charleston=E2=80=99s plea in=20
abatement.
<=
/SPAN>Robert=20
Pierce, president of the WISD school board, then testified on the =
merits=20
of WISD=E2=80=99s declaratory judgment action. He testified that =
notices of WISD=20
meetings were properly posted in accordance with the law by =
WISD=E2=80=99s posting=20
the notice at the administration office and on its =
website.=20
He also testified to the damages that =
would be=20
caused by any further delay in issuance of the bonds due to the =
pendency=20
of the lawsuit. He testified that an existing legislative debt =
allowance=20
(=E2=80=9CEDA=E2=80=9D) allowed WISD to have =E2=80=9Cstate =
matching funds that would drop our=20
debt down significantly,=E2=80=9D and that it would be =
=E2=80=9Cvery significant for the=20
school district,=E2=80=9D if the bonds were issued while the =
allowance existed. He=20
explained that if WISD did not get the state matching funds, the =
school=20
district taxpayers would have to pay an additional unmatched $20 =
million=20
to pay off the bonds.
<=
/SPAN>Charleston=20
questioned Pierce on whether the bond allocation of $17 million =
for a=20
stadium was prudent. WISD objected to relevance, and the objection =
was=20
sustained. Charleston responded that his questions regarding =
allocation of=20
the bonds related to equal protection issues brought in his =
federal suit.=20
The trial court explained that it could review the procedures =
leading up=20
to the bond election but that it could not address issues raised =
in the=20
federal lawsuit but not in the lawsuit before the court. =
Charleston then=20
questioned Pierce about the school meeting notices posted by WISD, =
and=20
Pierce admitted that WISD never posted notice of its meetings with =
the=20
county clerk. Charleston then called Richard McReavy, the WISD=20
superintendent, who likewise testified that WISD did not post any =
notices=20
of the school district meetings with the county clerk. =
<=
/SPAN>The=20
trial court ultimately ruled that WISD=E2=80=99s posting of notice =
at the school=20
district=E2=80=99s administrative office =E2=80=9Cwas in =
compliance with section 551.051=20
and was appropriate.=E2=80=9D The trial court orally granted =
WISD=E2=80=99s petition for=20
declaratory judgment. WISD then filed a motion for security, =
asking the=20
trial court to require Charleston to post a bond in accordance =
with=20
section 1205.101 of the Texas Government Code and to set a show =
cause=20
hearing on the motion. See Tex. Gov=E2=80=99t Code =
Ann. =C2=A7 1205.101=20
(Vernon 2000). Section 1205.101 of the Government Code provides =
that,=20
prior to entry of final judgment in a bond validation suit brought =
under=20
Chapter 1205 of the Code, the issuer may move for an order that=20
intervenors must post a bond to cover the costs of delay caused by =
their=20
continued participation in the suit should the issuer ultimately =
prevail=20
or else be dismissed from the suit. Id. Specifically, =
section=20
1205.101 provides,
<=
/SPAN>(a)=20
Before the entry of final judgment in an action under this =
chapter, the=20
issuer may file a motion with the court for an order that any =
opposing=20
party or intervenor, other than the attorney general, be dismissed =
unless=20
that person posts a bond with sufficient surety, approved by the =
court,=20
and payable to the issuer for any damage or cost that may occur =
because of=20
the delay caused by the continued participation of the opposing =
party or=20
intervenor in the action if the issuer finally prevails and =
obtains=20
substantially the judgment requested in its=20
petition.
Id. =C2=A7 1205.101(a) (Vernon =
2000). The court=20
must =E2=80=9Cgrant an issuer=E2=80=99s motion for security under =
section 1205.101 unless,=20
at the hearing on the motion, the opposing party or intervenor =
establishes=20
that the person is entitled to a temporary injunction against the =
issuance=20
of the public securities.=E2=80=9D Id. =C2=A7 1205.102 =
(Vernon 2000). Section=20
1205.103 provides,
<=
/SPAN>(b)=20
The bond must be in an amount determined by the court to be =
sufficient to=20
cover any damage or cost, including an anticipated increase in =
interest=20
rates or in a construction or financing cost, that may occur =
because of=20
the delay caused by the continued participation of the opposing =
party or=20
intervenor in the acts if the issuer finally prevails and obtains=20
substantially the judgment requested in its=20
petition.
Id. =C2=A7 1205.103(b) (Vernon =
2000).=20
<=
/SPAN>The=20
Government Code provides that the trial court =E2=80=9Cshall =
dismiss an opposing=20
party or intervenor who does not file a required bond before the =
11th day=20
after the date of the entry of the order setting the amount of the =
bond.=E2=80=9D=20
Id. =C2=A7 1205.104 (Vernon 2000). Unless the dismissal is =
appealed, a=20
dismissal under section 1205.104 is a final judgment of the court. =
Id. =C2=A7 1205.104(b). Once the trial court has dismissed =
an opposing=20
party or intervenor who fails to file a bond required by chapter =
1205, =E2=80=9CNo=20
court has further jurisdiction over any action to the extent that =
action=20
involves any issue that was or could have been raised in the =
action under=20
this chapter, other than an issue that may have been raised by an =
opposing=20
party or intervenor who was not subject to the motion.=E2=80=9D =
Id. =C2=A7=20
1205.104(c) (Vernon 2000).
<=
/SPAN>Finally,=20
section 1205.105 provides,
(c) If an appeal is not taken [from an =
order=20
dismissing a party or intervenor for failure to file a bond =
required by=20
chapter 1205] or if the appeal is taken and the order of the lower =
court=20
is affirmed or affirmed as modified, and the required bond is not =
posted=20
before the 11th day after the date of the entry of the appropriate =
order,=20
no court has further jurisdiction over any action to the extent it =
involves an issue that was or could have been raised in the action =
under=20
this chapter, other than an issue that may have been raised by an =
opposing=20
party or intervenor who was not subject to the motion.=20
Id.=20
=C2=A7 1205.105(c) (Vernon 2000).
<=
/SPAN>On=20
October 2, 2007, the trial court held a show cause hearing on =
WISD=E2=80=99s=20
motion for security pursuant to section 1205.101. After the =
hearing, the=20
trial court granted WISD=E2=80=99s motion for security. The trial =
court ordered=20
Charleston to post a bond for $715,000 if he wished to continue to =
participate in the suit. The trial court signed a final judgment =
the same=20
day. The judgment declared that WISD was authorized to issue the =
proposed=20
public securities and that the special election held on May 12, =
2007 was=20
legally and validly held pursuant to the Texas Education Code and =
the=20
Texas Election Code. Charleston failed to post the bond required =
by the=20
trial court=E2=80=99s October 2, 2007 order.
<=
/SPAN>On=20
October 9, 2007, WISD filed a motion to dismiss Charleston from =
the=20
proceedings pursuant to section 1205.104 of the Government Code, =
which=20
provides for dismissal of an opposing party or intervenor who does =
not=20
file a security bond required by an order pursuant to section =
1205.104=20
=E2=80=9Cbefore the 11th day after the date of the entry of the =
order setting the=20
amount of the bond.=E2=80=9D Id. =C2=A7 1205.104(a). On =
October 13, 2007, after=20
a hearing on WISD=E2=80=99s motion to dismiss, the trial court =
dismissed=20
Charleston for failing to post the bond. On the same day, the =
trial court=20
also denied Charleston=E2=80=99s renewed motion to dismiss the =
instant action.=20
<=
/SPAN>Charleston=20
appeals the Waller County trial court=E2=80=99s final judgment on =
WISD=E2=80=99s=20
declaratory judgment action, the October 2, 2007 order requiring =
him to=20
post security before the 11th day after issuance of the order, and =
the=20
October 13, 2007 order dismissing Charleston from the=20
lawsuit.
Security for=20
Issuer
<=
/SPAN>In=20
his fifth issue on appeal, Charleston argues that the trial court =
erred by=20
requiring him to post security.
<=
/SPAN>At=20
the October 2, 2007 show cause hearing on WISD=E2=80=99s motion =
for security, WISD=20
argued that it would lose money from the EDA if the bonds were not =
approved in a timely fashion, that it would also lose the benefit =
of=20
interest that would have been earned on the money while it was in =
the=20
bank, and that there would be increased costs as a result of =
construction=20
inflation because of the delay caused by Charleston=E2=80=99s =
continued=20
participation in the bond validation proceedings. See Tex. Gov=E2=80=99t Code =
Ann. =C2=A7 =
1205.102.
<=
/SPAN>Gary=20
Blanton, the managing principal of HSW Group, L.L.P., Architecture =
and=20
Engineering Company, testified that HSW assisted WISD =E2=80=9Cin =
their bond=20
planning efforts and also the Political Action Committee with =
their=20
promotion of the bond.=E2=80=9D Blanton testified that a delay in =
construction of=20
three months would cost WISD $266,508, a six-month delay would =
cost=20
$715,689, and a nine-month delay would cost $1,164,870. On=20
cross-examination, Charleston wanted to know why the stadium came =
first.=20
He did not elicit testimony or present evidence showing that =
Blanton=E2=80=99s=20
testimony on the cost of construction delays was inaccurate.=20
<=
/SPAN>WISD=E2=80=99s=20
counsel testified that the appellate process would cause losses =
due to=20
construction delays. He opined that the court of appeals would not =
act any=20
sooner than three months and that it would more likely be nine to =
twelve=20
months. He also testified that there would be an additional delay =
of three=20
to six months if an appeal were taken to the Texas Supreme Court.=20
Charleston testified that he was not responsible for delays prior =
to=20
trial, but he did not rebut WISD=E2=80=99s testimony regarding the =
delays his=20
appeal would cause.
<=
/SPAN>Although=20
section 1205.102 of the Government Code expressly provides that =
=E2=80=9CThe court=20
shall grant an issuer=E2=80=99s motion for security under =
Section 1205.101=20
unless, at the hearing on the motion, the opposing party or =
intervenor=20
establishes that the person is entitled to a temporary injunction =
against=20
the issuance of the public securities,=E2=80=9D see Tex. Gov=E2=80=99t Code =
Ann. =C2=A7 1205.102 =
(emphasis added),=20
Charleston neither presented evidence on the adequacy of the =
appeal bond=20
at the October 2 show cause hearing on WISD=E2=80=99s motion for =
security nor=20
showed at that hearing that he was entitled to a temporary =
injunction=20
against the issuance of the school bonds.
<=
/SPAN>Instead,=20
Charleston=E2=80=99s counsel raised pre-clearance issues that he =
contended had=20
delayed issuance of the bonds until early August 2007. The court =
cautioned=20
Charleston=E2=80=99s counsel that the delay relevant to =
WISD=E2=80=99s section 1205.101=20
motion for security was =E2=80=9Cessentially today going forward. =
Not something=20
that has happened in the past.=E2=80=9D Charleston=E2=80=99s =
counsel then questioned=20
McReavy on why construction would first start on the football =
stadium.=20
Charleston=E2=80=99s counsel explained his questions on the ground =
that the issue=20
was =E2=80=9Cissuing a bond to prevent the district from suffering =
some harm from=20
losing money, and we=E2=80=99re trying to show that that loss is =
largely=20
manufactured.=E2=80=9D
<=
/SPAN>On=20
cross-examination by WISD, McReavy was asked if the improvements =
needed to=20
start now or whether they could wait until later, and he =
responded, =E2=80=9CWe=20
need to move quickly on this for all of these things to occur. We =
need to=20
move forward on the bond issue.=E2=80=9D When asked what would =
happen if=20
construction on the football stadium did not begin by October 26, =
2007,=20
McReavy answered that, a =E2=80=9Cgroup of students will not use =
the stadium. The=20
stadium will not be available for that group of students to =
use.=E2=80=9D When=20
asked if the elementary school need to be started, McReavy said, =
=E2=80=9C[W]e=20
need to move forward on the elementary schools to have them ready =
for use,=20
to be ready in the summer of 2009, that new elementary, so that we =
can=20
take care of the students that we have and are projected to have =
at that=20
time, especially moving our 5th graders for academic reasons to =
the=20
elementary school.=E2=80=9D
<=
/SPAN>After=20
both sides had rested, the court permitted closing arguments. In =
its=20
closing argument, WISD pointed out that a person is excused from =
posting=20
security to prevent his dismissal from a bond validation case if =
he=20
establishes at the hearing on the motion for security that he is =
entitled=20
to a temporary injunction against issuance of the bonds. But it =
argued=20
that, in this case, it was impossible for Charleston to prove his=20
entitlement to an injunction against issuance of the bonds. Not =
only had=20
the Harris County court ruled that WISD had properly posted notice =
of the=20
school bond election and denied the injunction against issuance of =
the=20
bonds Charleston sought in that case, but the Waller County court =
itself=20
had tried WISD=E2=80=99s declaratory judgment and had granted =
WISD=E2=80=99s petition for=20
a judgment declaring that notice of the district meetings on the =
bond=20
issue was properly given. WISD asked that Charleston be required =
to post=20
bond of $715,689.15, as security for his continued participation =
in the=20
case, which was the projected increase in construction costs for a =
six-month delay.
<=
/SPAN>Charleston=E2=80=99s=20
counsel responded that Charleston was entitled to a temporary =
injunction=20
because Charleston had requested an injunction in =
Charleston=E2=80=99s federal=20
action =E2=80=9Cbased on the claims that we set forth [in that =
case that] this=20
bond violates federal laws, and we=E2=80=99re asking for it from =
the federal=20
court.=E2=80=9D In that regard, he objected to language in the =
final judgment,=20
drawn from section 1205.105(c) of the Texas Government Code, =
stating=20
that =E2=80=9Cthe =
Court=E2=80=99s judgment in=20
this lawsuit shall constitute a permanent injunction against the=20
institution or prosecution by any person or entity of any new or =
existing=20
action or proceeding contesting the validity of the Proposed =
Public=20
Securities; the expenditure of money relating to the Proposed =
Public=20
Securities; the provisions made for the payment of the Proposed =
Public=20
Securities or of interest thereon; the validity of the Parking Tax =
and the=20
Admissions Tax; the funds authorized to pay for the Proposed =
Public=20
Securities; any matter adjudicated by the Court=E2=80=99s judgment =
in this action;=20
and any matter that could have been raised in these =
proceedings.=E2=80=9D=20
Cf. Tex. =
Gov=E2=80=99t Code=20
Ann. =C2=A7 1205.105(c). Charleston=E2=80=99s counsel =
contended that the state=20
court lacked =E2=80=9Cpower under the constitution to enjoin the =
federal court=20
from considering these issues as they relate to federal =
law.=E2=80=9D Charleston=E2=80=99s counsel also=20
argued that he believed he had strong grounds for an appeal based =
on=20
statutory construction of the notice requirement. The trial court =
then set=20
the bond amount at $715,000.
=
Under=20
section 1205.102, the trial court was required to grant =
WISD=E2=80=99s motion for=20
security unless at the hearing on the motion, Charleston =
established that=20
he was entitled to a temporary injunction against issuance of the=20
securities. See Tex. Gov=E2=80=99t=20
Code Ann. =C2=A7 1205.102. Charleston failed to present =
evidence that=20
established his entitlement to a temporary =
injunction.
Therefore, the =
trial court=20
properly granted WISD=E2=80=99s motion for security for losses due =
to delays=20
caused by Charleston=E2=80=99s continued participation in this=20
lawsuit.
<=
/SPAN>Having failed to =
establish=20
his right to an injunction, Charleston also failed to post the =
bond=20
required by the trial court=E2=80=99s October 2, 2007 order. =
Section 1205.104=20
of the Government Code requires that an =
intervenor=20
who fails to post bond within 11 days shall be dismissed from the=20
proceedings. Tex. =
Gov=E2=80=99t Code=20
Ann. =C2=A7 1205.104(a). Following a hearing on =
WISD=E2=80=99s=20
motion to dismiss, the trial court dismissed Charleston from the =
lawsuit=20
on October 13, 2007, and Charleston filed this appeal, still =
without=20
posting the security required by the trial court=E2=80=99s October =
2=20
order.
<=
/SPAN>Section=20
1205.105(c) provides that if an appeal is taken from an order =
under=20
section 1205.103 of the Government Code requiring an intervenor to =
post=20
security in a bond validation suit, and the order of the lower =
court is=20
affirmed, and
the required bond =
is not=20
posted before the 11th day after the date of the entry of the =
appropriate=20
order, no court has further jurisdiction over any action to the =
extent it=20
involves an issue that was or could have been raised in the action =
under=20
this chapter, other than an issue that may have been raised by an =
opposing=20
party or intervenor who was not subject to the=20
motion.
Tex. Gov=E2=80=99t=20
Code Ann. =C2=A7 1205.105(c).
=
The=20
Texas Supreme Court has construed the term =E2=80=9Cthe =
appropriate order=E2=80=9D in=20
section 1205.105(c) of the Code to be the order of the trial court =
requiring the posting of security, regardless of whether an appeal =
is=20
taken or not. See Buckholtz Indep. Sch. Dist. v. =
Glaser, 632=20
S.W.2d 146, 150=E2=80=9351 (Tex. 1982). Thus, if an appellate =
court subsequently=20
affirms an order of a trial court requiring an opposing party or=20
intervenor to post security for delays caused by his continued=20
participation in a bond validation action under chapter 1205 of =
the=20
Government Code, and the person subject to the order failed to =
post=20
security within 11 days of entry of the order of the trial court =
requiring=20
security, then, under the terms of section 1205.105(c) of the =
Code, no=20
court has further jurisdiction over the action to the extent it =
involves=20
an issue that was or could have been raised in the bond validation =
action=20
by the person subject to the order. See Tex. Gov=E2=80=99t Code =
Ann. =C2=A7=20
1205.105(c); Buckholtz Indep. Sch. Dist., 632 S.W.2d at =
150=E2=80=9351.=20
=
Charleston=20
failed to post the $715,000 security bond prior to October 13 as =
required=20
by the trial court=E2=80=99s October 2, 2007 order. We conclude, =
therefore, that=20
the trial court properly granted WISD=E2=80=99s motion for =
security and that it=20
properly dismissed him from the proceedings for failing to file =
the=20
appropriate bond. See Buckholtz Indep. Sch. Dist., 632 =
S.W.2d=20
150=E2=80=9351 (stating that =E2=80=9Ca legislative purpose in =
enacting the statute was to=20
stop =E2=80=98the age old practice allowing one disgruntled =
taxpayer to stop the=20
entire bond issue by simply filing suit=E2=80=99=E2=80=9D); In =
re Talco-Bogata Consol.=20
Indep. Sch. Dist. Bond Election, 994 S.W.2d 343, 348 (Tex.=20
App.=E2=80=94Texarkana 1999, no pet.).
=
We=20
overrule Charleston=E2=80=99s fifth issue on =
appeal.
=
Charleston next argues that the trial =
court should=20
have set the bond amount at zero. Charleston contends that in his =
second=20
and third points of error, he =E2=80=9Cdemonstrated that the bonds =
cannot be=20
authorized or sold so long as the federal case is pending. Thus =
his=20
continued participation in this state action will not be a source =
of any=20
damage or cost to Waller ISD so long as the federal case is =
pending,=20
because Waller ISD cannot sell the bonds, begin construction, etc. =
until=20
the federal matter is resolved.=E2=80=9D The appellate record =
shows that=20
Charleston never made this complaint to the trial court. Thus, the =
issue=20
is waived on appeal. See Tex. R. App.=20
33.1(a).
=
Because=20
we affirm the trial court=E2=80=99s October 2, 2007 order =
requiring Charleston to=20
post a security bond and the trial court=E2=80=99s October 13, =
2007 order=20
dismissing Charleston from the lawsuit, we have no jurisdiction =
over=20
Charleston=E2=80=99s remaining claims. See Tex. Gov=E2=80=99t Code =
Ann. =C2=A7=20
1205.105(c); Buckholts, 632 S.W.2d at 150=E2=80=9351.
Conclusion
=
We=20
affirm the trial court=E2=80=99s October 2, 2007 order which =
required Charleston=20
to post a security bond of $715,000 to continue as a participant =
in this=20
lawsuit. We likewise affirm the trial court=E2=80=99s October 13, =
2007 order which=20
dismissed Charleston from the lawsuit. We dismiss the portion of =
the=20
appeal that relates to Charleston=E2=80=99s remaining claims for =
want of=20
jurisdiction.
=
&=
nbsp; &n=
bsp; &nb=
sp; &nbs=
p; Evelyn=20
V. Keyes
=
&=
nbsp; &n=
bsp; &nb=
sp; &nbs=
p; Justice
Panel consists of =
Justices=20
Nuchia, Jennings, and=20
Keyes. |