January 2010 Texas Supreme Court Opinions

Note: Fridays are opinion-release days at the Texas Supreme Court. Opinions were issued only on two Fridays in January 2010, however.

January 15, 2010 Opinions of the Texas Supreme Court

WHICH COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER TRUST-RELATED LITIGATION, REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE?
Carroll v. Carroll, No. 08-0644 (Tex. Jan. 22, 2010)(per curiam)(proceedings concerning trust, trustee removal, suit for accounting by trustee belong in district court, not county court; absence of jurisdiction rendered judgment void)
In this case, Johnny and Letha sought removal of a trustee, an accounting by a trustee, and appointment of a successor trustee, together with money damages and attorney’s fees. Removal of a trustee, an accounting by a trustee, and appointment of a successor trustee are all “proceedings concerning a trust” expressly governed by the statute and fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the district court. Tex. Prop. Code § 115.001(a). As such, transfer to the Hill County Court at Law was improper because it was apparent from the pleadings that the county court lacked jurisdiction over the claims. Because the Hill County Court at Law had no jurisdiction over the claims, its judgment was void. See State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex. 1995). Because the county court’s judgment was void, we do not reach Johnny’s other arguments challenging the judgment.
JOHNNY CARROLL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE JOHNNY CARROLL TRUST v. LETHA FRANCES CARROLL AND DONALD CARROLL; from Hill County;
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, vacates the county court's judgment, and remands the case to the county court.
Per Curiam Opinion

SPECIAL APPEARANCE - NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN EXECUTIVES
NEWLY-APPOINTED JUSTICE GUZMAN ISSUES FIRST OPINION IN CASE FROM COURT OF APPEALS OF WHICH SHE WAS UNTIL RECENTLY HERSELF A MEMBER
Kelly v. General Interior Construction, Inc., No. 08-0669 (Tex. Jan. 22, 2010)(Guzman) (no personal jurisdiction, out-of-state officers of construction company should have been granted special appearance, no minimum contacts shown)
Because GIC’s pleadings lack Texas-specific allegations, the Officers negated all jurisdictional bases by proving that they do not live in Texas, and GIC has not presented any evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, we reverse in part the court of appeals and render judgment dismissing GIC’s claims against Kelly and Hofstatter for lack of personal jurisdiction.
DAN KELLY AND LAURA HOFSTATTER v. GENERAL INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION, INC.;
from Harris County; 14th district (14-07-00270-CV, 262 SW3d 79, 07-03-08)
The Court reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Eva M. Guzman delivered the opinion of the Court.

UNDER NEW PRECEDENT CREATED IN 2009, TRIAL COURTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GRANT NEW TRIAL FOLLOWING JURY VERDICT MERELY "IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE" - ANOTHER JUDGE GETS MANDAMUSSED ACCORDINGLY
In re United Scaffolding, Inc., No. 09-0403 (Tex. Jan. 22, 2010)(per curiam) (grant of new trial after jury verdict requires explanation pursuant to recently established new precedent)
IN RE UNITED SCAFFOLDING, INC.; from Jefferson County;
9th district (09-09-00098-CV, 287 SW3d 274, 04-16-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion

January 22, 2010: One Per Curiam Supreme Court of Texas Opinion

SUPREMES ISSUE PER CURIAM IN ANOTHER APPEAL INVOLVING THE STATEMENT-OF-POINTS ERROR-PRESERVATION TRAP SET FOR PARENTS STRIPPED OF THEIR PARENTAL RIGHTS
In re JHG, No. 09-0531 (Tex. Jan. 22, 2010) (per curiam)
(termination of parental rights appeal, statement of points)
Although the mother did not include the trial court’s failure to dismiss in her points for appeal, the court of appeals held that the issue was not waived because it bore on the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. 290 S.W.3d at 403. This holding is directly contrary to our decision in In re Department of Family and Protective Services, in which we held that the section 263.401(a) dismissal date is procedural, not jurisdictional. 273 S.W.3d 637, 642 (Tex. 2009). As such, the mother’s failure to challenge the trial court’s extension of the statutory deadline in her statement of points waived the issue on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to that court for consideration of the remaining issues.
IN RE J.H.G.; from Collin County; 5th district (05-08-00875-CV, 290 SW3d 400, 05-14-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Per Curiam Opinion