CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
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:A homeowners’ association, Los Felinos, filed suit against Juan and Clarrisa Ibarra for failure to pay homeowner assessments and administrative fees. Los Felinos alleged in its first petition that it was entitled by the deed covenants, conditions and restrictions to a vendor’s lien to secure payment of the fees. Los Felinos initiated foreclosure proceedings. An attorney ad litem was appointed for the Ibarras, who filed an answer to the proceeding on June 6, 2002. A trial court entered judgment against the Ibarras on Nov. 21 for past assessments and for attorneys’ fees. The trial court also found Los Felinos had a valid vendor’s lien and so ordered foreclosure on the property in satisfaction of the judgment. The attorney ad litem was awarded attorneys’ fees, too. On May 23, 2003, Mack Casner, who alleged that he bought the property at a judgment sale on May 6, filed a petition to intervene. Noting that Los Felinos sent notice of the Ibarras’ right of redemption, Casner challenged the constitutionality of several of the Property Code’s redemption provisions. He asked the trial court to find the provisions unconstitutional and to enjoin their implementation until a trial could be held. Alternatively, he asked the trial court to set aside the judgment sale and return his purchase money, and he asked the trial court for a declaratory judgment and a default judgment against the Ibarras. Los Felinos filed a special appearance in the suit on June 12, based on lack of personal jurisdiction, saying Casner never served the entity. The next day, Los Felinos filed a plea to the jurisdiction, based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, saying Casner’s petition was not timely; that the trial court could not set aside the judgment after its plenary power expired in the case. Los Felinos also stated that Casner had not notified the attorney general of his declaratory judgment suit aimed at the unconstitutionality of the redemption statute. The parties exchanged answers, motions and amended petitions. Then on June 23, in response to the allegation that he had not notified the AG, Casner filed a copy of a June 20 letter to the AG notifying the office of his suit. In his “First Supplemental Petition” filed June 24, Casner said that the AG was not required to be joined since Casner was seeking a declaratory judgment. He also reiterated that he was no longer seeking the alternative relief of return of his purchase money. On July 3, the day Casner advised the AG there would be a hearing on his default judgment motion, the AG filed a plea in intervention, then, at the hearing, questioned the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear the cause since the trial court’s final judgment in the case had been entered in November 2002. Also at the hearing, Casner and the AG both gave their arguments on issue of the redemption statutes’ constitutionality. Casner further argued that he was unaware of the redemption statute at the time he purchased the property, and that he considered the property to be uninhabitable due to various structural problems. The hearing was recessed until July 9, at which time Los Felinos and Casner told the trial court that they had reached an agreement. The trial court approved of an agreed dismissal order, dismissing Casner’s petition and all claims with regard to Los Felinos with prejudice. The order stated that Casner would not seek to overturn either the judgment or the judgment sale. Two days later, the Ibarras’ attorney ad litem filed a special appearance to establish non-representation in the pending matter, and the trial court entered an order confirming that the attorney ad litem’s representation ended Nov. 21, 2002. The trial court reconvened the July 3 hearing on July 28, took all of Casner’s and the AG’s live pleadings and motions under advisement and ended the proceedings. The trial court signed a default judgment against the Ibarras on Aug. 8. The trial court also found that allowing the Ibarras to take advantage of the redemption statute provisions would result in “unlawful and irreparable damages” to Casner. The trial court then enjoined future implementation of the redemption statute provisions and permanently enjoined the Ibarras or their heirs from invoking the provisions. The judgment did not mention the AG. On appeal, the AG argues that Casner’s intervention should have been stricken because it was untimely and not reasonably related to the underlying lawsuit. HOLDING:Vacated and dismissed. Here, the trial court rendered its judgment in the original action on November 21, 2002. Casner filed his petition in intervention on May 23, 2003, 183 days after the final judgment had been rendered. In his first supplemental petition, Casner argued that he did not seek to set aside any judgment in his post-judgment intervention. The trial court’s judgment of Aug. 18, 2003, from which this appeal was taken, does not set aside the prior judgment in the underlying action, but rather, permanently enjoins the Ibarras from taking advantage of redemption provisions. Following “settled case law,” the court concludes the trial court erred when it considered Casner’s petition in intervention 183 days after rendition of its final judgment in the original action. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter its Aug. 18, 2003, judgment granting a permanent injunction against the Ibarras, therefore that judgment is a nullity and void. The holding in Breazeale v. Casteel, which said that intervention is not necessarily barred after the trial court has rendered final judgment where the intervenor does not attack the substance of the judgment itself, but merely seeks to protect his interest in property, does not apply. Breazeale clearly limited its holding to post-judgment motions for turnover relief and does not apply to this case, the court rules. OPINION:Chew, J.; Barajas, C.J., Larsen and Chew, JJ.

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.