 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Deam Ranch Properties Ltd v. Bayliss11/30/2005
ween the parties, which (b) will be actually determined by the judicial declaration sought.'" TexasAss'n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993) (quoting Board of Water Engineers v. City of San Antonio, 155 Tex. 111, 283 S.W.2d 722, 724 (1955)). Standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction, which we consider under the same standard by which we review subject matter jurisdiction generally. Id. at 445-46. A party has standing if it has a justiciable interest in the suit or a personal stake in the controversy. See Nootsie, Ltd. v. Williamson County Appraisal Dist., 925 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. 1996); Tex.Ass'n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 444. In contrast, a party has capacity when it has the legal authority to act, whether it has standing or not. See Nootsie, 925 S.W.2d at 661.
In this case, the contract for sale was with Dean Ranch; Dr. Dean was the deed grantee only by mistake; and Dean Ranch would--and did--ultimately pay the assessment. These facts are some evidence that Dean Ranch has a justiciable interest in the controversy. Dean Ranch has standing.
Bayliss's argument is that when there are related parties such as Dr. Dean and Dean Ranch, and the wrong party is the named plaintiff, the named plaintiff does not own the cause of action and thus lacks standing. However, " challenge to who owns a claim raises the issue of capacity, not standing, and therefore does not implicate the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction." Gonzales v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 08-04-00033-CV, slip op., 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 6219 at *11-12 (Tex. App.--El Paso Aug. 4, 2005, no pet. h.) (citing Nootsie, 925 S.W.2d at 662, and Pledger v. Schoellkopf, 762 S.W.2d 145, 145-46 (Tex. 1988)). Bayliss thus has presented a defect-of-parties issue as a standing issue.
Concerning Dean Ranch's second issue, the trial court issued a post-trial December 23, 2003 letter-ruling that (1) there could not have been true reliance by Dean Ranch on the representations at issue and granted JNOV on Dean Ranch's statutory fraud claim, which was the only basis for Dean Ranch's recovery of attorney's fees, and (2) Dean Ranch "should recover on its negligence claim." See TEX. BUS. & COMM. CODE ANN. § 27.01(e) (Vernon 2002). Thus, the final judgment did not award Dean Ranch its attorney's fees.
Furthermore, the majority opinion incorrectly asserts that nothing in the record allowed the trial court to rule that there could not have been true reliance; i.e., Bayliss does not show where he requested such relief. To the contrary, during the charge conference, Bayliss moved for directed verdict on the reliance issue, and I believe that the evidence supports the trial court's ruling that Dean Ranch could not have relied on Bayliss as a matter of law. Moreover, a statutory real estate fraud claim exists only for a "false representation of a past or existing material fact. . . ." Id. § 27.01(a)(1). Because Dean Ranch's claim rested on Bayliss's subsequent failure to disclose or concealment of the city's December 6, 2000 letter, rather than a false representation of a past or existing material fact, Dean Ranch's claim under section 27.01 fails as a matter of law. I would overrule Dean Ranch's second issue.
For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent.
BILL VANCE Justice
Page 1 2 3 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|