X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The defendant filed a motion asserting both improper venue and inconvenience, which the trial court granted without specifying the grounds. The court of appeals reversed, refusing to presume a venue order was granted on convenience grounds unless the order specifically said so. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. The petitioner’s factual sufficiency complaint had to be raised in a motion for new trial, but because she never paid the $15 fee, the trial court was not required to review it. Thus, because no new trial fee was ever paid, the court of appeals correctly never addressed the petitioner’s factual sufficiency complaint, but correctly considered her venue complaint. The Legislature amended the venue statutes in 1995 to allow a trial court to transfer venue “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.” At the same time, the Legislature mandated that a trial court’s order granting or denying such a transfer for convenience is “not grounds for appeal or mandamus and is not reversible error.” Because the motion here asserted convenience as one ground, and the statute precludes reversal of any ruling made on convenience grounds, the court holds the court of appeals erred in considering and reversing the trial court’s venue order. The court acknowledges the court of appeals’ concern that the usual presumption in favor of nonspecific orders will make many venue orders “immune from review.” But in transfer orders based on convenience, that appears to have been precisely the Legislature’s intent. And even under the court of appeals’ bright-line test, trial judges who are so inclined may make any venue order immune from review simply by adding “granted on convenience grounds.” OPINION:Brister, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Owen, Justice O’Neill, Justice Schneider and Justice Smith joined. Chief Justice Phillips filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Wainwright joined as to Parts I and II. Justice Wainwright filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Jefferson did not participate in the decision.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.