NUMBER 13-13-00581-CV
GOURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GORPUS CHRISTI . EDINBURG
MARY FOWLER, Appellant,
GUS MONTIS,
ARGIRO INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellee.
On appealfrom the Gounty Gourt No. 5
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes
Appellant Mary Fowler appeals the county court's judgment of eviction awarded in
favor of Gus Montis and Argiro lnvestments, LLC. Fowler argues Montis lacked standing
and capacity to pursue the forcible detainer action. We agree. We vacate and render
judgment dismissing the suit.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Justice Court
Montis filed a forcible detainer action against Fowler in his own name. All of the
justice court documents, including the forcible detainer petition, the citation directed to
Fowler, and the court's judgment, name Montis as the only plaintiff. The justice court
ruled in Montis's favor. The judgment does not mention Argiro lnvestments, L.L.C.
B, Gounty Gourt
Fowler appealed to the county court. Montis did not file any pleadings in the
county court. Attorney Jacyr Heil sent the county court a letter of representation, telling
the county court he represented Montis. There is no letter of representation for Argiro
lnvestments, L.L.C.
The first time Argiro lnvestments, L.L.C. was named as a plaintiff was in Fowler's
"Second Amended Original Answer," which she filed in the county court. Fowler
attached a copy of her written lease agreement to her answer. The lease names Argiro
lnvestments, L.L.C. as the landlord. Montis signed his name on the landlord's signature
line. Fowler also attached a Nueces County Tax Office printout, which names Argiro
lnvestments, L.L.C. as the property owner, and a "Substitute Trustee's Deed," which
shows Argiro lnvestments, L.L.C. purchased the property. Montis testified that he owns
the property and is the only member of Argiro lnvestments, L.L.C. The county court
entered judgment in favor of Montis and Argiro lnvestments, L.L.C.
II. STANDING
By two issues, which we construe as one, Fowler argues Montis lacked standing
and capacity to bring the forcible detainer action because Argiro lnvestments, L.L.C.
owned the property. "Standing is a prerequisite to subject-matter jurisdiction, and
subject-matter jurisdiction is essential to a court's power to decide a case." M.D. Cancet
Ctr. v. Novak, 52 S.W.3d 704, 7 08 (Tex. 200'l ); Bland lndep. Scf¡. Disf v. B/ue, 34 S.W.3d
547,553-54(Tex.2000). ltcanberaisedatanytime. Fin.Comm'nofTex.v.Nonuood,
418 S.W.3d 566, 580 (Tex. 2013); Austin Nursing Ctr. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845,849
(Tex. 2005).
Although Montis is the only member of Argiro lnvestments, L.L.C., a limited liability
company is considered a separate legal entity from its members. See Gers v. Colina Del
Rio, L.P.,362 S.W.3d 100, 109 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2011,pet. denied); see a/so
Barrera v. Cherer, No. 04-13-00612-CV, 2014 WL 1713522, at -2 (Tex. App.-San
Antonio Apr. 30,2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). Amemberof a limited liability company does
not have an interest in any of the company's specific property. TEX. Bus. ORGS. CoDE
ANN. S 101.106(b) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.); see Banera,2014 WL
1713522, aT"2. "A member of a limited liability company may be named as a party in an
action by . . . the limited liability company only if the action is brought to enforce the
member's right against or liability to the company. TEX. Bus. ORGS. CoDE ANN. S 1 0l .l 13
(West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.); see Banera,2014 WL 1713522, at .2. Montis
did not bring suit against Fowler to enforce his right against or liability to Argiro
lnvestments, L.L.C.
Montis insists that because he signed the lease in the blank provided for the
landlord, he has standing. Although his signature may insufficiently reflect his
representative capacity, see TEX. Bus. & CoM. CoDE ANN. S 3.402 (West, Westlaw through
2013 3d C.S.), it does not give him standing to bring company claims. A member of a
limited liability company lacks standing to assert claims individually where the cause of
action belongs to the company. See Nauslar v. Coors Brewing Co., 170 S.W.3d 242,
250-51 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.); see alsoWingatev. Hajdick,795S.W.2d717,
719 (Tex. 1990) (holding individual stakeholder of a legal entity does not have the right to
personally recover for harms done to the legal entity); APM Enters-, L.L.C. v. Nat'l Loan
Acquistions Co., No. 06-14-00027-CV,2014 WL 5317753, at "7 (Tex. App.-Texarkana
Oct 17,2014, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (holding limited liability member has no standing to
bring company's causes of action); Banera, 2014 WL 1713522, at .2 (holding limited
liability member lacked standing to bring forcible detainer action against tenant on
property owned by limited liability company). We conclude Montis lacked standing to
bring the company's forcible detainer action against Fowler.
Montis contends Fowler's inclusion of Argiro Investments, L.L.C. as a party in her
pleadings renders it a party, but there is no record that the parties or the county court
added Argiro lnvestments, L.L.C. as a parly or that it participated in the case. See
generally TEX. R. Crv. P. 3740 (outlining the requisite service process, timelines, and
steps to joining parties). Argiro lnvestments, L.L.C. was not officlally made a party to the
forcible detainer action, and Montis lacked standing to bring it. We sustain Fowler's
issue.l
ilt. coNcLUstoN
We vacate the county court's judgment and render judgment dismissing the
forcible detainer action suit brought by Montis.
Delivered and filed the 20th
day of November,2014.
1 We do not determine whether Argiro lnvestments, L.L.C. would have standing to bring forcible
detainer.
5