Opinion issued July 12, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00204-CV
———————————
IN RE MOODY NATIONAL KIRBY HOUSTON S, LLC, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petitions for Writ of Mandamus
OPINION
In this original proceeding, relator, Moody National Kirby Houston S, LLC
seeks mandamus relief compelling the trial court to grant its motions to expunge
the lis pendens filed by Capcor at KirbyMain, LLC on real property owned by
Moody. * We deny the petition.
Capcor sued Moody asserting various claims arising from a failed real estate
transaction. It also filed a notice of lis pendens with the Harris County Clerk.
Moody filed a motion to expunge the lis pendens, which the trial court denied.
The case proceeded to trial. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of
Moody on Capcor’s statutory fraud claim, and the jury rendered a verdict in favor
of Moody on Capcor’s remaining claims. Moody filed a second motion to
expunge, but the trial court never ruled on that motion. On October 17, 2012,
Moody filed its third Motion to Expunge and Cancel Lis Pendens.
The trial court entered a final judgment on October 26, 2012. Capcor timely
filed a motion for new trial. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Moody’s
third motion to expunge as moot. Then on January 9, 2013, the motion for new
trial was overruled by operation of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(c). Capcor timely
filed its notice of appeal, and that appeal is currently pending in this court as cause
no. 01-13-00068-CV.
*
The underlying case was Capcor at KirbyMain, LLC v. Moody National
Kirby Houston S, LLC and Moody National Title Company, LP, Cause
No. 2011-32904, in the 215th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the
Honorable Elaine Palmer, presiding.
2
On February 5, 2013, the trial court denied Moody’s Motion for
Reconsideration of its Third Motion to Expunge Capcor’s Lis Pendens. On
February 8, the trial court’s plenary power expired. TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(e).
Moody subsequently filed this petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief from
the trial court’s order denying its third motion to expunge the lis pendens.
Mandamus relief is available only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when
there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See, e.g., Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d
833, 839 (Tex. 1992). Mandamus has been recognized as an appropriate remedy
when interlocutory issues have arisen concerning the issuance of notices of lis
pendens. See, e.g., In re Cohen, 340 S.W.3d 889, 900 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding); First Nat. Petroleum Corp. v. Lloyd, 908 S.W.2d
23, 24 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ) (orig. proceeding); see also
Flores v. Haberman, 915 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam, orig.
proceeding). However, in this case, final judgment had been entered, a notice of
appeal had been filed, and the trial court’s plenary power had expired by the time
Moody filed its mandamus petition. Accordingly, all of the trial court’s
interlocutory rulings, including its denials of the motions to expunge the lis
pendens, had merged into the final judgment and had become appealable. See,
e.g., Roccaforte v. Jefferson Cnty., 341 S.W.3d 919, 924 (Tex. 2011); Webb v.
Jorns, 488 S.W.2d 407, 408–09 (Tex. 1972) (holding that interlocutory judgment
3
merged into final judgment, which was then appealable); CenterPoint Energy
Hous. Elec. LLC v. Bluebonnet Drive, Ltd., 264 S.W.3d 381, 387 n.4 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied).
“Mandamus will not issue where there is ‘a clear and adequate remedy at
law, such as a normal appeal.’” Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840 (quoting State v.
Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex. 1984)). Accordingly, mandamus relief is not
appropriate in this proceeding because Moody had an adequate remedy by appeal,
and we deny the petition.
Michael Massengale
Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Massengale.
Justice Sharp, dissenting.
4