El Caballero Ranch, Inc. A/K/A El Caballero, LLC and Laredo Marine, LLC v. Grace River Ranch, LLC

ACCEPTED
04-15-00127-CV
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
6/23/2015 11:57:39 AM
KEITH HOTTLE
CLERK

No. 04-15-00127CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN
4th COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
FOR THE 4TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
06/23/2015 11:57:39 AM
KEITH E. HOTTLE
AT SAN ANTONIO Clerk

EL CABALLERO RANCH, INC.
AND LAREDO MARINE, L.L.C., Appellants
V.
GRACE RIVER RANCH, LLC, Appellee

Appealed from
the 218th District Court of
La Salle County, Texas

FIRST AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

MOORMAN TATE HALEY
UPCHURCH & YATES, LLP

By: STEVEN C. HALEY
State Bar No. 08741900
207 East Main
P.O. Box 1808
Brenham, Texas 77834-1808
Telephone: (979) 836-5664
Telecopier: (979) 830-0913
shaley@moormantate.com

{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 MONTEZ & PATTERSON

John H. Patterson, Jr.
State Bar No. 24027716
Thornton Plaza
508 Thorton, Suite 4
Cotulla, Texas 78014
Telephone: (830) 483-5191
Telecopier: (830) 483-5192
john@montezandpatterson.com

JOE RUBIO LAW FIRM

JOE RUBIO
State Bar No. 17362100
1000 Washington St., Ste. 4
Laredo, Texas 78040
Telephone: (956) 712-2223
Telecopier: (956) 712-2225
joerubio@joerubiolawfirm.com

Attorneys for Appellee,

Grace River Ranch, LLC

{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

REFERENCES TO PARTIES................................................................................2
REFERENCES TO RECORD................................................................................2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...............................................................................2
STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................3
1. Grace River Ranch ......................................................................................3
2. El Caballero Ranch .....................................................................................3
3. 7 C’s Ranch ..................................................................................................3
4. Common Source of Title of Grace River Ranch, El Caballero Ranch,
and 7 C’s Ranch .........................................................................................3
5. Northerly Grace River Easement ..............................................................6
6. Easterly Access Easement ..........................................................................6
7. Grace River Easements ..............................................................................7
8. Grace River Ranch the Successor Dominant Estate Owner of the
Grace River Easements .............................................................................8
9. El Caballero and Laredo Marine are the Successor Servient Owners
Under the Grace River Easements ...........................................................8
10. Additional Private and Public Easements Along the Route of the
Northerly Grace River Easement .............................................................9
11. Use of the Northerly Grace River Easement ..........................................10
12. Use of Easterly Grace River Easement ...................................................12
13. Grace River Buys Grace River Ranch ....................................................13
14. Permitting ..................................................................................................13
15. Grace River Notifies El Caballero That Grace River is the Current
Owner of the Northerly Grace River Easement ...................................14
16. Grace River Requests Keys and Access to the Northerly Grace River
Easement ...................................................................................................14
17. El Caballero Refuses Access Along the Northerly Grace River
Easement ...................................................................................................14

iii
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 18. El Caballero Falsely and Unilaterally Attempted to Terminate the
Northerly Grace River Easement, the Berry Easement, and the La
Salle County Easement ............................................................................14
19. The Original Basis for El Caballero’s Excluding Grace River from the
Northerly Grace River Easement are Failure of Purpose,
Abandonment, and Impossibility ...........................................................15
20. Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment Filed by
Grace River ...............................................................................................15
21. El Caballero Files its First Amended Answer ........................................15
22. Intervention by Laredo Marine ...............................................................16
23. Grace River’s Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary
Judgment Heard and Submitted ............................................................16
24. Court Issues Letter Ruling .......................................................................16
25. Order Entered ...........................................................................................16
26. Amended Order Entered ..........................................................................17
27. Second Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment
by Grace River .........................................................................................17
28. Second Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment
Granted .....................................................................................................18
29. Judge Saxon Retires ..................................................................................18
30. Judge Saxon Assigned to Stay With This Case ......................................18
31. Objection to Assignment of Judge Saxon ...............................................18
32. Motion for Entry of Partial Summary Judgment ..................................18
33. Partial Summary Judgment .....................................................................18
34. Interlocutory Appeal.................................................................................20
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES.................................................................20
1. Partial Summary Judgment Includes an Interlocutory Permanent
Injunction ..................................................................................................20
2. Judge Saxon Had Authority to Enter Partial Summary Judgment ....23
3. Injunctive Relief Not “New Relief” .........................................................25
4. Judge Saxon Had No Further Participation in this Suit After Entry of
the Rendered Partial Summary Judgment............................................26
5. Second Mandamus Proceeding ................................................................27
iv
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
PRAYER .................................................................................................................27

v
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Aimco Prop., L.P. v. Time Warner Entertainment –
Advanced/Newhouse Partnership, 1997 WL 590675 (Tex.
App. – Austin 1997) .....................................................................................25

Aloe Vera of America, Inc. v. CIC Cosmetics Int’l Corp., 517
S.W.2d 433 (Tex. Civ. App. – Dallas 1974, no writ) .......................... 21, 23

Brelsford v. Old Bridge Lake Community Serv. Corp., 784 S.W.2d
700 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no writ) ......................... 21, 23

Chicago Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company v. Spool
Stockyards Company, 220 F. Supp. 433 (W.D. Tex. 1963) ........................25

City of Mission v. Popplewell, 294 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. 1956) .................................25

County of Harris v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 457 S.W.2d 336
(Tex. Civ. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1970, no writ) .................................25

Crawford v. Crawford, 315 S.W.2d 190 (Tex. Civ. App. – Waco
1958, no writ) ................................................................................................23

Egan v. Woodell, 720 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1986,
writ ref’d n.r.e.) ............................................................................................25

Gensco, Inc. v. Thomas, 609 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. Civ. App. – San
Antonio 1980, no writ) .................................................................................22

Gillette v. Van Horne, 96 S.W.2d 305 (Tex. Civ. App. – El Paso
1931, writ dism’d) ........................................................................................25

Greene v. State, 324 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App. – Austin, no pet.) ................... 23, 24

In re Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. 2001) ............................................................25

James v. Hubbard, 985 S.W.2d 516 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1998,
no pet.)...........................................................................................................22

Kelso v. Thorne, 710 S.W.2d 735(Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1986,
no writ.) .........................................................................................................23
vi
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
Martinez v. Martinez, 759 S.W.2d 522 (Tex. App. – San Antonio
1988, no writ) ................................................................................................23

Meredith v. Eddy, 616 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. Civ. App. – Houston [1st
Dist.] 1981, no writ) .....................................................................................25

Mobil Pipe Line Co. v. Smith, 860 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. App. – El Paso
1993, no writ) ................................................................................................25

Quest Communications Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex.
2000) ..............................................................................................................23

Texas Life Ins. Co. v. Texas Bldg. Co., 307 S.W.2d 149 (Tex. Civ.
App. – Fort Worth 1957, no writ) ....................................................... 23, 24

Young v. Golfing Green, 2012 WL 6685472 (Tex. App. – Dallas
2012) ....................................................................................................... 21, 23

Statutes

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4) .............................................20

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 74.052 ...........................................................................24

Rules

TEX. R. CIV. P. Rule 166a(a) ..................................................................................21

vii
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 No. 04-15-00127CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE 4TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT SAN ANTONIO

EL CABALLERO RANCH, INC.
AND LAREDO MARINE, L.L.C., Appellants
V.
GRACE RIVER RANCH, LLC, Appellee

Appealed from
the 218th District Court of
La Salle County, Texas

FIRST AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellee, Grace River Ranch, LLC respectfully files this, its First Amended

Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction, in this appeal from a Partial

Summary Judgment entered in the 218th District Court of La Salle County, Texas,

the Honorable Stella Saxon, presiding.

1
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 REFERENCES TO PARTIES

Appellee, Grace River Ranch, LLC, is sometimes referred to herein simply

as “Grace River.” Appellant, El Caballero Ranch, Inc., is sometimes referred to

herein simply as “El Caballero.” Appellant, Laredo Marine, L.L.C., is sometimes

referred to herein simply as “Laredo Marine.” Intervenor, Robert W. Brittingham,

is sometimes referred to herein simply as “Brittingham.”

REFERENCES TO RECORD

References to the transcript from the District Court of La Salle County are

referred to as “CR” (Clerk’s Record), or similar reference, followed by the

appropriate Volume and Page number(s). Reference to the Reporter’s Record are

referred to as “RR” followed by the appropriate Volume and Page number(s).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This suit was brought in the trial court by Grace River against El Caballero

and Laredo Marine for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages seeking to

gain access to certain deeded private easements (collectively the “Grace River

Easements”) and a public easement (the “Public Easement”) crossing both El

Caballero Ranch (belonging to El Caballero) and 7 C’s Ranch (belonging to

Laredo Marine). These easements were and are blocked by locked gates

maintained by both El Caballero and Laredo Marine. Intervenor, Brittingham,

brought suit against El Caballero and Laredo Marine seeking similar relief.

2
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
Brittingham has now settled with El Caballero and Laredo Marine gaining

complete access to Brittingham’s similar easement as sought in Brittingham’s Plea

in Intervention. Additionally, El Caballero and Laredo Marine paid all of

Brittingham’s attorney’s fees.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Grace River Ranch. Grace River is the owner of the 6,779.066 acre “Grace

River Ranch” located in La Salle County, Texas.1

2. El Caballero Ranch. El Caballero is the owner of at least 9,220.993 acres

comprising the “El Caballero Ranch” also located in La Salle County.2

3. 7 C’s Ranch. Laredo Marine is the owner of a 30,074.41 acre tract known as the

“7 C’s Ranch” located in La Salle and Webb Counties, Texas.3

4. Common Source of Title of Grace River Ranch, El Caballero Ranch, and 7

C’s Ranch. The Grace River Ranch, the El Caballero Ranch, and the 7 C’s Ranch, have a

common source of title, being Patrick H. Welder, Jr. The parent tract was acquired by Patrick H.

Welder, Jr. by deed dated January 28, 1963. The histories of Grace River Ranch, the El

Caballero Ranch, and the 7 C’s Ranch subsequent to that common source of title appear below in

tabular form:

1
CR I, 38-39, 61-77, 263-264. Grace River is a Texas limited liability company formed on
December 28, 2012 as “Rio Gracia, LLC.” On January 30, 2013, the registered name of Rio
Gracia LLC was changed to “Grace River Ranch, LLC. CR I, 8, 56-60.
2
CR I, 39-40, 81-91, 263-64; CR III, 105-125.
3
CR I, 40-42.

3
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 Figure 1.
Title History – Grace River Ranch

Document Date Reference to
Record

General Warranty Deed, Patrick September 6, 1995 CR I, 92-103
H. Welder, Jr. to John T. Mundy
and Sue E. Mundy

Special Warranty Deed, John T. December 17, 2012 CR I, 104-112
Mundy and Sue E. Mundy to
The Roy and Bonnie Goodwin
Family Ranch Trust (Veda Gwen
Goodwin Treat and Kelly
Maxwell Goodwin, as Co-
Trustees)

Special Warranty Deed, Veda December 31, 2012 CR I, 61-77
Gwen Goodwin Treat and Kelly
Maxwell Goodwin, Co-Trustees
of the Roy and Bonnie Goodwin
Family Ranch Trust Dated
December 17, 2012 to Rio
Gracia, LLC

Figure 2.

Title History – El Caballero Ranch

Document Date Reference to the
Record

Vendor’s Lien Deed, Patrick H. February 3, 1997 CR I, 113-129
Welder, Jr. to Knight Oil Tools,
Inc.

Warranty Deed, Knight Oil March 30, 1998 CR I, 81-91
Tools, Inc. to El Caballero
Ranch, Inc.

4
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 Figure 3.

Title History – 7 C’s Ranch

Document Date Reference to the
Record

Warranty Deed, Patrick H. October 6, 1999 CR III, 126-144
Welder, Jr. to E. J. Cop
(30,074.41 ac.)

Warranty Deed, E.J. Cop to March 22, 2000 CR III, 146-164
Dennis J. Wilkerson, Trustee
(15,000 ac.)

Warranty Deed, E.J. Cop to March 22, 2000 CR III, 165-191
Dennis J. Wilkerson, Trustee,
Samuel H. Vester, Jr. and Joseph
P. Gerlich (15,074.41 ac.)

Warranty Deed With Vendor’s March 22, 2000 CR III, 192-222
Lien, Dennis J. Wilkerson,
Trustee, Samuel H. Vester, Jr.,
and Joseph P. Gerlich to Damon
Chouest, Inc.

Correction Warranty Deed With April 18, 2011 CR III, 223-258
Vendor’s Lien, Dennis J. (Effective March
Wilkerson, Trustee, Samuel H. 22, 2000)
Vester, Jr. and Joseph P. Gerlich
to Damon Chouest, Inc.

General Warranty Deed With December 18, 2000 CR III, 259-295
Assumption of Security
Documents, Damon Chouest,
Inc. to Laredo Marine, L.L.C.

Correction General Warranty April 20, 2011 CR III, 105-125
Deed With Assumption of (Effective
Security Documents, Damon December 18,
Chouest, Inc. to Laredo Maine, 2000)
L.L.C.
4

4
See also CR I, 42-44.

5
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 5. Northerly Grace River Easement. Contemporaneously with the creation and

sale of the present Grace River Ranch by Patrick H. Welder, Jr. on September 6, 1995, Welder

created and granted an “Access Easement Agreement” for vehicular and pedestrian access in

favor of purchasers, John T. Mundy and Sue E. Mundy, leading from Grace River Ranch over

and across Welder’s retained property inclusive of the present El Caballero Ranch and 7 C’s

Ranch and passing along a prescribed and surveyed route northward from Grace River Ranch

toward FM 624. This Access Easement Agreement provided in pertinent part:

(1) the easement was 80 feet in width;

(2) the access was for vehicular and pedestrian access along the described
route of the easement for each owner of the present Grace River Ranch,
their employees, agents, and invitees;

(3) no barriers were to be erected to interfere with the free flow of vehicular
and pedestrian traffic across the present El Caballero Ranch and/or 7 C’s
Ranch other than gates through which the easement owner might pass
without assistance;

(4) the servient owner was to provide the easement owner with all necessary
keys to open gates such that all gates could be freely opened and closed
without assistance;

(5) the easement was binding upon and inured to the benefit of all subsequent
owners of the servient and dominant estates;

(6) the easement could not be subsequently amended except by a writing by
the owners of the servient and dominant estates and signed and filed of
record in La Salle County;

(7) the easement was appurtenant to the present Grace River Ranch.

(hereinafter the “Northerly Grace River Easement”).5

6. Easterly Access Easement. Contemporaneous with the creation and sale of the

present Grace River Ranch by Patrick H. Welder, Jr. on September 6, 1995, Welder also created

5
CR I, 44-45, 130-146, 263-264.

6
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
and granted an additional “Access Easement Agreement” for vehicular and pedestrian access in

favor of purchasers, John T. Mundy and Sue E. Mundy, to the present Grace River Ranch over

and across Welder’s retained property inclusive of the present 7 C’s Ranch property and passing

along a described route towards State Highway 44. This second Access Easement Agreement

provided in pertinent part:

(1) the easement was 80 feet in width;

(2) the access was for vehicular and pedestrian access along the described
route of the easement for each owner of the present Grace River Ranch,
their employees, agents, and invitees;

(3) no barriers were to be erected to interfere with the free flow of vehicular
and pedestrian traffic across the present 7 C’s Ranch property other than
gates through which the easement owner might pass without assistance;

(4) the servient owner was to provide the easement owner with all necessary
keys to open gates such that all gates could be freely opened and closed
without assistance;

(5) the easement was binding upon and inured to the benefit of all subsequent
owners of the servient and dominant estates;

(6) the easement could not be subsequently amended except by a writing by
the owners of the servient and dominant estates and signed and filed of
record in La Salle County, Texas.

(7) The easement was appurtenant to the present Grace River Ranch.

(hereinafter the “Easterly Access Easement”).6

7. Grace River Easements. The Northerly Grace River Easement and the Easterly

Grace River Easement are herein sometimes collectively referred to as the “Grace River

Easements”.

6
CR I, 45-46, 263-264; CR III, 296-308.

7
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 8. Grace River Ranch the Successor Dominant Estate Owner of the Grace

River Easements. Grace River is the successor in title to the dominant estate of the Grace River

Easements per the following chain of title:

Figure 4.
Grace River Easements Title History (Dominant Estate)

Instrument Date Reference to the
Record

Access Easement Agreement September 6, 1995 CR I, 130-146
(Northerly), Patrick H. Welder, Jr.
to John T. Mundy, et ux

Access Easement Agreement September 6, 1995 CR III, 296-308
(Easterly), Patrick H. Welder, Jr. to
John T. Mundy, et ux

Special Warranty Deed, John T. December 17, 2012 CR I, 101-112
Mundy and Sue E. Mundy to Roy
and Bonnie Goodwin Family Ranch
Trust (Veda Gwen Goodwin Treat
and Kelly Maxwell Goodwin, as
Co-Trustees) 7

Special Warranty Deed, Veda December 31, 2012 CR I, 61-77
Gwen Goodwin Treat and Kelly
Maxwell Goodwin, Co-Trustees of
the Roy and Bonnie Goodwin
Family Ranch Trust of December
17, 2012 to Rio Gracia, LLC8
9

9. El Caballero and Laredo Marine are the Successor Servient Owners Under

the Grace River Easements. El Caballero, as the owner of the El Caballero Ranch, is the

successor in title to that part of the servient estate encumbered by the Northerly Grace River

7
The Grace River Easements were expressly conveyed as part of this transaction.
8
The Grace River Easements were expressly conveyed as part of this transaction.
9
See also CR I, 46-47.

8
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
Easement and lying within the El Caballero Ranch per the chain set out in Figure 2. Laredo

Marine, as the owner of the 7 C’s Ranch, is the successor in title to that part of the servient estate

encumbered by both the Northerly Grace River Easement and the Easterly Grace River Easement

and lying within 7 C’s Ranch per the chain of title set out in Figure 3.

All vesting deeds into El Caballero and Laredo Marine, and their predecessors in title,

made after September 6, 1995 (the date the Grace River Easements were created), are expressly

made subject to the Northerly Access Agreement, the Easterly Access Agreement, and the Public

Easement (as applicable).10

10. Additional Private and Public Easements Along the Route of the Northerly

Grace River Easement. The Northerly Grace River Easement is non-exclusive. Additional

parties have valid public and/or private easements along the route of the Northerly Grace River

Easement and across El Caballero Ranch and the 7 C’s Ranch, which easements were originally

created by the following instruments:

Figure 5.

Additional Public and/or Private Easements
Along the Northerly Grace River Easement

Instrument Date Reference to the
Record
Access Easement Agreement, March 31, 1995 CR I, 157-173
Patrick H. Welder, Jr. to Jim Berry
and Bob Berry (hereafter the “Berry
Easement”)
(now owned by Brittingham)

10
CR I, 10, 81-91, 113-129; CR III, 105-125, 126-144, 146-164, 165-191, 192-222, 223-258,
259-295.

9
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 Additional Public and/or Private Easements
Along the Northerly Grace River Easement

Instrument Date Reference to the
Record

Vendor’s Lien Deed, Patrick H. February 3, 1997 CR I, 113-129
Welder, Jr. to Knight Oil Tools,
Inc. (hereafter the “Welder
Easement”)11

Right-of-Way Deed, Ruth Bradley February 3, 1939 CR I, 174-177
Watkins, Individually and as
Independent Executor of the Will
and Estate of Griffin Watkins,
Deceased, et al to G.A. Welhausen,
County Judge, La Salle County,
Texas (the “Public Easement”).
12

These additional easements have not been subsequently revoked, released, or terminated.

11. Use of the Northerly Grace River Easement. After the creation and recordation

of the Northerly Grace River Easement in favor of John T. Mundy and Sue E. Mundy

(hereinafter collectively “Mundy”), Mundy extensively used the Northerly Grace River

Easement for access to the Grace River Ranch (then the Mundy Ranch). Mundy was originally

supplied with a key to all gates across the Northerly Grace River Easement by Patrick H. Welder,

Jr. The Northerly Grace River Easement crossed the Nueces River over a low water crossing

originally constructed by La Salle County decades prior to Mundy’s easement on a public road

(the “Public Easement”) along the same path as the Northerly Grace River Easement (hereafter

called the “Low Water Crossing”).

11
This instrument expressly retained an access easement in favor of Patrick H. Welder, Jr.
12
See also CR I, 47-48.

10
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 On February 3, 1997, Knight Oil Tools acquired the current El Caballero Ranch by

Vendor’s Lien Deed made expressly subject to the Northerly Grace River Easement, the Berry

Easement, and the Public Easement. Knight Oil Tools, Inc. then conveyed the El Caballero

Ranch to a related entity, El Caballero, on March 30, 1998 also expressly subject to the same

preexisting easements.

Eddie Knight, a principal of both Knight Oil Tools, Inc. and El Caballero Ranch supplied

Mundy with keys to a new gate lock placed by Knight Oil Tools/El Caballero Ranch along the

route of the Northerly Grace River Easement. Later Knight Oil Tools/El Caballero Ranch

supplied a second and updated key to a replacement lock along the route of the Northerly Grace

River Easement. Mundy continued to make extensive use of the Northerly Grace River

Easement for access and egress to the Mundy Ranch.

Sometime thereafter, there was a washout of 65 feet of the southern approach to the

decades old Low Water Crossing. The majority of the span of the Low Water Crossing remains

intact. This washout limited the use of the Northerly Grace River Easement as a through way to

FM 624 by Mundy while Mundy waited for the repair of the Low Water Crossing. Crossing the

Nueces River required a 4WD vehicle thereafter. Mundy temporarily limited Mundy’s travel

along the entirety of the Northerly Grace River Easement for this reason only. Mundy mostly

utilized alternative access. However, there was no change in the road that indicated to Mundy

that any party was attempting to deny Mundy the use of the Northerly Grace River Easement as

it crossed either the El Caballero Ranch or the 7 C’s Ranch. There were no visual indications on

the road that either servient owner then failed to recognize the continuity of the Northerly Grace

River Easement. Nothing about the gates or road indicated any change in circumstances.

Nothing indicated that Mundy’s key was no longer valid to access the road. Neither El Caballero

11
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
nor Laredo Marine repudiated the easement to Mundy. Mundy never intended to nor did Mundy

relinquish Mundy’s right to use the Northerly Grace River Easement after the washout. No one

connected with El Caballero Ranch or 7 C’s Ranch ever challenged Mundy’s right to use the

Northerly Grace River Easement. Mundy would have vigorously opposed any such effort.

The Northerly Grace River Easement also crosses the present 7 C’s Ranch between Grace

River Ranch and the Nueces River to the north along the route described in the Northerly Grace

River Easement. During the time that Damon Chouest, Inc. and Laredo Marine, L.L.C. owned

the 7 C’s Ranch, they had a Ranch Manager running operations named Chad Edwards. During

this period, all gates lying along the Northerly Grace River Easement on the 7 C’s Ranch were

taken down and/or unlocked except one new gate lying several hundred yards south of the

Nueces River. This gate was kept locked with a lock requiring a key. Mundy was originally

provided with a duplicate copy of this key by Chad Edwards after the southern approach to the

Low Water Crossing washed out in anticipation of its later use. At all times while Mundy and

Mundy-related entities owned the Grace River Ranch, Mundy had the use of the Northerly Grace

River Easement. Mike Treat, a caretaker for the Mundy Property, utilized the 7 C’s Ranch

portion of the Northerly Grace River Easement several times a year each year for the period

extending between 2000 and 2013. No one connected with 7 C’s Ranch ever disputed that use.13

12. Use of Easterly Grace River Easement. After the creation and recordation of

the Easterly Grace River Easement in favor of Mundy, Mundy extensively used the Easterly

Grace River Easement for access to the Grace River Ranch (then the Mundy Property). The

Easterly Grace River Easement provided access to the Mundy Ranch from an easterly direction

across the present 7 C’s Ranch Property. This was one of the preferred routes to reach the Ranch
13
CR I, 81-91, 113-129, 130-146, 178-183, 184-189, 263-264, 273-278, 279-280; CR II, 1; CR
III, 310-314.

12
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
convenient to Mundy. There was a locked gate where the Easterly Grace River Easement

entered the present 7 C’s Ranch. Mundy maintained Mundy’s own lock on this gate to allow

them to come and go along the Easterly Grace River Easement. During the entire time of

Mundy’s ownership of the Ranch, no one connected with any of the owners of the present 7 C’s

Ranch ever attempted to restrict or prohibit Mundy’s use of the Easterly Grace River Easement.

Mundy used it frequently and without protest from anyone. No one connected with the

ownership of 7 C’s Ranch ever challenged Mundy’s right to use the Easterly Grace River

Easement for as long as Mundy owned the Ranch. If they had, Mundy would have vigorously

opposed any such effort. Representatives of Grace River Ranch have used the Easterly Access

Easement freely since Grace River purchased the Grace River Ranch without complaint or

opposition by anyone connected with 7 C’s Ranch.14

13. Grace River Buys Grace River Ranch. On December 31, 2012 Grace River

bought the Grace River Ranch and appurtenant easements, inclusive of the Grace River

Easements.15

14. Permitting. Grace River then obtained all necessary governmental permitting

and easements from the General Land Office of Texas (GLO) and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers to repair and utilize the Low Water Crossing.

The GLO has now issued a Miscellaneous Easement to Grace River for the Nueces River

Crossing. The Miscellaneous Easement was applied for and issued in complete conformity with

the statutes and regulations governing such easements. The GLO issued the Miscellaneous

14
CR I, 53, 178-183, 184-189, 263-64; CR III, 105-125, 310-314.
15
CR I, 49, 61-77.

13
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
Easement in the public interest notwithstanding objection by El Caballero and Laredo Marine.

The GLO has no plans to revoke, suspend, or modify the Miscellaneous Easement.16

15. Grace River Notifies El Caballero That Grace River is the Current Owner of

the Northerly Grace River Easement. In February, 2013 Grace River notified El Caballero

that Grace River was the current owner of the Northerly Grace River Easement.17

16. Grace River Requests Keys and Access to the Northerly Grace River

Easement. Beginning February 22, 2013, Grace River requested keys and access to the

Northerly Grace River Easement as it traverses El Caballero Ranch.18

17. El Caballero Refuses Access Along the Northerly Grace River Easement. In

response to requests by Grace River for access along the Northerly Grace River Easement, El

Caballero refused any access along the easement.19

18. El Caballero Falsely and Unilaterally Attempted to Terminate the Northerly

Grace River Easement, the Berry Easement, and the La Salle County Easement. In direct

response to Grace River’s request for access, on or about March 5, 2013, El Caballero attempted

to falsely and unilaterally terminate the Northerly Grace River Easement, the Berry Easement

(now owned by Intervenor, Robert W. Brittingham), and the Public Easement by recording in the

Official Records of La Salle County, a “Notice of Revocation and Termination of Easement and

Access Easement Agreements” by claims of abandonment, failure of purpose, and impossibility.

16
CR I, 14-15; CR II 23-55; CR III, 2-33, 34-102.
17
CR I, 49, 256-257, 258-260.
18
CR I, 49, 258-260, 261-262.
19
CR I, 50, 190-193, 194-195, 268-270; CR II, 5-16.

14
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
Prior to that date neither El Caballero nor its predecessors in title had taken an action to cancel or

repudiate the Northerly Grace River Easement.20 This suit followed shortly thereafter.

19. The Original Basis for El Caballero’s Excluding Grace River from the

Northerly Grace River Easement are Failure of Purpose, Abandonment, and Impossibility.

The original basis of El Caballero’s refusal to allow use of the Northerly Grace River Easement

was failure of purpose, abandonment, and impossibility. El Caballero’s initial legal position,

long since abandoned, was that Grace River could not secure the necessary permitting to rebuild

the Low Water Crossing.21

20. Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment Filed by Grace

River. On July 18, 2013, Grace River filed in the trial court its Traditional and No-Evidence

Motion for Summary Judgment to determine and declare the validity of the Northerly Grace

River Easement and of the public roadway along the route of the Northerly Grace River

Easement based on the original failure of purpose, abandonment, and impossibility defenses

raised to El Caballero. This Motion was set for hearing before the Court on September 26,

2013.22

21. El Caballero Files its First Amended Answer. On or about September 18, 2013

approximately seven days prior to the scheduled hearing on the above Traditional and No-

Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, El Caballero filed in the trial court its First Amended

20
CR I, 50, 196-255.
21
CR I, 190-193, 196-255, 268-270; CR II, 17-22.
22
Second Supplemental CR I, 426; Second Supplemental CR II, 55.

15
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
Answer, Defenses & Counterclaim (the “Amended Answer”). The Amended Answer raised the

additional defense of adverse possession under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.026.23

22. Intervention by Laredo Marine. On that same day, September 18, 2013, Laredo

Marine filed in the trial court its Original Petition in Intervention and Counterclaim contesting

the validity of the Northerly Grace River Easement and the public road running along the path of

the Northerly Grace River Easement on grounds of abandonment, failure of purpose, and adverse

possession/limitations.24

23. Grace River’s Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment

Heard and Submitted. The Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment filed

by Grace River was heard by the Court on September 26, 2013. The Motion was extensively and

exhaustively argued and briefed by the Parties.25

24. Court Issues Letter Ruling. On or about June 12, 2014, the Court entered its

letter ruling that was granting the Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment

of GRACE RIVER.26

25. Order Entered. Over eight months after the hearing date, on July 7, 2014, the

Court entered its Order Granting Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment in

favor of Grace River.27

23
Second Supplemental CR I, 427-433.
24
Second Supplemental CR I, 433-438.
25
Second Supplemental CR II, 55.
26
Second Supplemental CR II, 8-9.
27
Second Supplemental CR II, 10-13.

16
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 26. Amended Order Entered. On August 4, 2014, the Court entered its First

Amended Order Granting Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment in favor

of Grace River. The Court by its First Amended Order Granting Traditional and No-Evidence

Motion for Summary Judgment found as follows:

1. Private Easement. GRACE RIVER RANCH, LLC (GRACE RIVER) has a
valid and subsisting non-exclusive express easement across El Caballero
Ranch for vehicular and pedestrian access to and egress from Grace River
Ranch along that part of the Grace River Easement lying within El Caballero
Ranch, with the right to use and maintain the road thereon and any culverts,
low water crossings, or bridges lying along the Grace River Easement which
has not been abandoned, become impossible, or relinquished, or failed of its
purpose.

2. Public Road. There is a valid and subsisting express public road across El
Caballero Ranch along the route and of the width described in the County
Road Easement for that part of the County Road Easement lying within El
Caballero Ranch which public road has not been abandoned or relinquished
by La Salle County, become impossible, or failed of its purpose.28

The trial court’s order was expressly made interlocutory. It made no attempt to

adjudicate claims filed after the filing date of the original Motion.

27. Second Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment by

Grace River. Grace River then filed its Second Motion for Traditional and No-Evidence

Motion for Summary Judgment seeking summary judgment on the additional issues and against

the additional parties raised and/or intervening after the filing of the original Motion (as granted

by the Court on July 7, 2014 and again on August 4, 2014) and pertaining to all matters

concerning the validity and continuity of the Grace River Easements and the Public Easement.

This was heard on September 18, 2014.29

28
Second Supplemental CR II, 55-57.
29
CR I, 1-280; CR II, 1-55; CR III, 1-408.

17
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 28. Second Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment

Granted. On December 17, 2014, Judge Saxon issued her letter ruling that the Second

Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment of Grace River was granted.30

29. Judge Saxon Retires. Judge Saxon retired effective December 31, 2014. Grace

River sent to Judge Saxon a proposed Partial Summary Judgment consistent with her letter ruling

prior to this date. However, no formal order was entered prior to Judge Saxon’s retirement date.

30. Judge Saxon Assigned to Stay With This Case. On January 6, 2015, Presiding

Judge for the Fourth Administrative Region, David Peeples, assigned Judge Saxon to this case.31

31. Objection to Assignment of Judge Saxon. On January 9, 2015, El Caballero

and Laredo Marine both filed their Objection to Assignment of Visiting Judge objecting to Judge

Saxon’s assignment to this case.32

32. Motion for Entry of Partial Summary Judgment. Pursuant to a Motion for

Entry of Partial Summary Judgment filed by Grace River, a hearing was conducted by Judge

Saxon on March 3, 2015.33

33. Partial Summary Judgment. At the conclusion of the March 3, 2015 hearing,

Judge Saxon entered a Partial Summary Judgment making a final determination of all issues

relating to the validity, continuity, and extent of the Grace River Easements and the Public

Easement.34 The only claims remaining unadjudicated after March 3, 2015 were:

30
CR V, 166.
31
CR V, 169.
32
CR V, 170-171.
33
RR, 3.
34
CR V, 285.

18
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 (1.) All damage claims by Grace River against El Caballero and Laredo
Marine by reason of the disruption or blocking of the Grace River
Easements and the La Salle County Easement.

(2.) All claims for attorney’s fees and costs.35

The Partial Summary Judgment made a final determination of all issues relating to the

validity, continuity, and extent of the Grace River Easements and the Public Easement as

follows:

(1.) Private Easement. Grace River has valid and subsisting non-exclusive
express easements across El Caballero Ranch, 7 C’s Ranch, and the
Nueces River Crossing for vehicular and pedestrian access to and egress
from Grace River Ranch along that part of the Grace River Easements
lying within El Caballero Ranch, 7 C’s Ranch, and/or the Nueces River
Crossing with the right to use and maintain the road thereon and any
culverts, low water crossings, or bridges lying along the Grace River
Easement in conformity with the rights and privileges and subject to the
requirements set out in the Grace River Easements and the Miscellaneous
Easement.

(2.) Public Road. There is a valid and subsisting public road across El
Caballero Ranch, 7 C’s Ranch, and Nueces River Crossing along the route
and of the width described in the County Road Easement for that part of
the County Road Easement lying within El Caballero Ranch, 7 C’s Ranch,
and the Nueces River Crossing.36

The Partial Summary Judgment, after finally determining all issues regarding the

existence of the Grace River Easements and the Public Easement permanently enjoined El

Caballero and Laredo Marine as follows:

1. Private Easements. El Caballero and Laredo Marine are enjoined from:

(a.) Erecting or maintaining any barriers, fences, or gates of any kind that
would interfere with or obstruct the free flow of vehicular or pedestrian
access, on, over, or across the Grace River Easements other than gates
currently located on El Caballero Ranch or 7 C’s Ranch. All such gates
must be maintained and/or secured such that Grace River may pass

35
CR V, 285.
36
CR V, 284.

19
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 through them without assistance. Laredo Marine shall remove the fence
along the Northerly Grace River easement and located within 7 C’s Ranch
within 30 days of the date entry of this Partial Summary Judgment.

(b.) Maintaining any gate or barrier along or across the Grace River Easements
without providing all necessary keys, combinations, or codes to GRACE
RIVER to open such gates without assistance. Such keys, combinations,
or codes are to be delivered to Grace River not later than 3 days from the
entry hereof, and prior to an installation of any future rekeyed,
reconfigured, or recoded lock.

(c.) Taking any action to prevent Grace River from freely opening and closing
any gates in the Grace River Easements without assistance.

(d.) Preventing or obstructing Grace River from using, having access across, or
undertaking the maintenance or repair of the roadway, bridges, low water
crossings, culverts, grades, trimming, etc. along the Grace River
Easements and Nueces River Crossing.

2. Public Road. El Caballero and Laredo Marine are permanently enjoined from:

(a.) Preventing or obstructing maintenance or repair of the roads, bridges,
culverts, grades, or low water crossings lying along the County Road
Easement.37

34. Interlocutory Appeal. From the Partial Summary Judgment, El

Caballero and Laredo Marine have brought this Interlocutory Appeal pursuant to

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4) (appeal of grant of temporary

injunction).38

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

1. Partial Summary Judgment Includes an Interlocutory Permanent

Injunction. Appellants’ appeal is based on the unsupported misconception that

37
CR V, 284-285.
38
CR V, 287-294.

20
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
the Partial Summary Judgment, because interlocutory, of necessity, includes a

“temporary injunction.”39 This misapprehends the law and the state of the record.

An interlocutory judgment may contain a permanent injunction.40

The Partial Summary Judgment makes it clear that the trial court intended to

issue a permanent injunction. The Court expressly stated that the Partial Summary

Judgment decided “all claims of the Parties relating to the validity, continuity, and

extent of the [easements]” and leaving only damage claims for later adjudication.41

The injunction does not contemplate any further order of the court or have any

time limitations on its application.42 There was no trial necessary to resolve the

merits of Grace River’s easement claims. The Partial Summary Judgment granted

injunctive relief following a hearing on a motion for summary judgment and not

upon a request for a temporary injunction.43

39
See, e.g., Appellants’ Brief at 12.
40
See Young v. Golfing Green, 2012 WL 6685472 at *1 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2012); Aloe Vera of
America, Inc. v. CIC Cosmetics Int’l Corp., 517 S.W.2d 433, 436 (Tex. Civ. App. – Dallas 1974,
no writ); Brelsford v. Old Bridge Lake Community Serv. Corp., 784 S.W.2d 700, 701-02 (Tex.
App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no writ).
41
CR V, 285. Because the damage claims presented genuine issue of fact, the trial court
rendered interlocutory relief as expressly authorized by TEX. R. CIV. P. Rule 166a(a).
42
CR V, 284-285.
43
See Young v. Golfing Green, supra at *2.

21
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 The true character of an injunction is to be determined by its characteristics

and functions.44 Whether an injunction is temporary or permanent is determined

by looking at the substance of the order.45 The purpose of a temporary injunction

is to preserve the status quo pending a final hearing to determine the merits.46

Conversely, a permanent injunction is not dependent on any further action on the

merits by the trial court.47 A permanent injunction grants all relief the trial court

intends to grant on that subject matter.48 This is clearly the case with the Partial

Summary Judgment. It expressly resolves the merits of the easement claims and

the injunctive relief necessary to enforce adherence to the Court’s Order. No more

permanent order could be made with respect to Grace River’s claims for injunctive

relief than the trial court made.49 The Partial Summary Judgment is an

interlocutory order granting a permanent injunction. Because the trial court’s order

44
Gensco, Inc. v. Thomas, 609 S.W.2d 650, 651 (Tex. Civ. App. – San Antonio 1980, no writ);
James v. Hubbard, 985 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1998, no pet.)
45
Gensco v. Thomas, supra at 651.
46
Id.
47
Id.
48
Id.
49
Id.

22
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
grants a permanent injunction, there is no jurisdiction supporting the present

appeal.50

Appellants’ opposition to this motion is mired in the semantics of the

discussions before the trial court and not the substance of the Partial Summary

Judgment.51 The status of the injunction as permanent or temporary is not defined

by the argument before the trial court or other matters of form or semantics.52 It is

the character and function of the order that determines its classification.53

2. Judge Saxon Had Authority to Enter Partial Summary Judgment.

If a district judge renders a judgment prior to the judge’s retirement or the

expiration of his or her term of office, that retired judge may perform the

ministerial act of later signing an instrument of judgement thereon.54 A letter by

50
See Quest Communications Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. 2000); Brelsford
v. Old Bridge Lake Community Serv. Corp., 784 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th
Dist.] 1989, no writ); Aloe Vera of America, Inc. v. CIC Cosmetics Int’l Corp., 517 S.W.2d 433,
436-37 (Tex. Civ. App. – Dallas 1974, no writ); Young v. Golfing Green Homeowners Ass’n,
Inc., 2012 WL 6685472 at *1 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2012); Kelso v. Thorne, 710 S.W.2d 735, 736-
37 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1986, no writ.).
51
Response at 7-9. Grace River argued to the trial court that its situation differed from cases
dealing with a temporary injunction based on the Court’s final determination of the validity of
the easement. RR 10-12. Appellants’ incorrect argument then, as now, was that an interlocutory
summary judgment could not grant a permanent injunction. RR 7. But see authorities at n. 40.
52
Quest Communications Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 336-37 (Tex. 2000).
53
Id. at 336.
54
Greene v. State, 324 S.W.3d 276, 282 (Tex. App. – Austin, no pet.); Texas Life Ins. Co. v.
Texas Bldg. Co., 307 S.W.2d 149, 154 (Tex. Civ. App. – Fort Worth 1957, no writ); Crawford v.
Crawford, 315 S.W.2d 190, 192 (Tex. Civ. App. – Waco 1958, no writ); Martinez v. Martinez,
759 S.W.2d 522, 523 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1988, no writ).

23
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
the Court to the parties to prepare a judgment serves as a rendition of judgment

sufficient to preserve the authority of the Court to sign a judgment post-

retirement.55 The salutary purpose of this rule is to allow the judgment to be

signed by the same judge who heard the matter such that it reflects the operation of

that judge’s mind.56

Judge Saxon did not sign the Partial Summary Judgment as a visiting judge

under TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 74.052, but pursuant to her residual authority as

“Presiding Judge” of the 218th District Court.57 Quite apart from Appellants’

suggestion that Judge Saxon hijacked the proceedings aware of her lack of

authority to act, the Motion for Entry of Partial Summary Judgment was heard by

Judge Saxon at the direction of both the Presiding Judge of the Fourth

Administrative Judicial Region and senior sitting district judge in La Salle

County.58 Judge Saxon had authority to sign the Partial Summary Judgment to

carry into effect her earlier rendition.59

In an effort at forum shopping, Appellants filed an objection to the

assignment of Judge Saxon to the case following her retirement. Appellants

55
Greene v. State, supra at 282.
56
Texas Life Ins. Co. v. Texas Building Co., supra at 154.
57
CR V, 285. See also, RR 8.
58
See RR 8.
59
CR V, 166.

24
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
objected to Judge Saxon handling the remainder of the case to its conclusion.60

Appellants suggest (without reference to the record) that Judge Saxon overruled

that objection.61 The basis of this inexplicable claim does not appear in the

record.62

3. Injunctive Relief Not “New Relief”. Grace River brought this suit to

establish the validity of the Grace River Easements and Public Easement.

Ancillary to that relief, Grace River sought to enjoin Appellants from their

unlawful interference with the use and enjoyment of these valuable property

rights.63 Injunctive relief is manifestly the appropriate remedy to prevent

obstruction of an easement.64

60
CR V, 170-71.
61
Appellant’s Response to Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss (hereinafter simply the “Response”) at
4.
62
Indeed, no ruling on the Appellants’ motion was required as its application to future
proceedings was automatic. In re Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698, 701 (Tex. 2001).
63
CR III, 424; Second Supplemental CR II, 29, 48.
64
City of Mission v. Popplewell, 294 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Tex. 1956); Mobil Pipe Line Co. v.
Smith, 860 S.W.2d 157, 160 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1993, no writ); Gillette v. Van Horne, 96
S.W.2d 305, 306 (Tex. Civ. App. – El Paso 1931, writ dism’d); Egan v. Woodell, 720 S.W.2d
169, 171-72 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Meredith v. Eddy, 616 S.W.2d
235, 241 (Tex. Civ. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no writ); Chicago Rock Island and Pacific
Railroad Company v. Spool Stockyards Company, 220 F. Supp. 433, 437 (W.D. Tex. 1963);
Aimco Prop., L.P. v. Time Warner Entertainment – Advanced/Newhouse Partnership, 1997 WL
590675 at *3-4 (Tex. App. – Austin 1997); County of Harris v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 457
S.W.2d 336, 341 (Tex. Civ. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1970, no writ).

25
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 Grace River’s Second Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary

Judgment requested summary judgment determining that the Grace River

Easements and Public Easement were valid and subsisting. The motion carried

forward the pleaded request for injunctive relief, requesting that the Court enjoin

any further interference or obstruction thereof by Appellants.65 The motion sought

summary judgment on all issues and against all parties not adjudicated by the first

summary judgment order.66 Appellants suggest (without reference to the record),

that the injunction is “new relief” not requested prior to the entry of Partial

Summary Judgment.67 This prodigiously misapprehends the record.

4. Judge Saxon Had No Further Participation in this Suit After

Entry of the Rendered Partial Summary Judgment. Appellants suggest by the

Response that:

“Since that ruling [on the Partial Summary Judgment] La Salle County has
filed an affirmative pleading with Judge Saxon, contending it was improper
for her to declare the existence of a public road absent participation in the
proceeding by the County(…La Salle County has asked that Judge Saxon, at
a minimum, strike the portion of the summary judgment orders…”68

65
CR I, 3. Grace River’s Second Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment
was filed on August 12, 2014, over four months prior to Judge Saxon’s retirement. CR I, 1. It
was heard on September 18, 2014, over three months prior to Judge Saxon’s retirement. CR V.
66
CR I, 23.
67
Response at 4-5.
68
Response at 5.

26
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
The implication by Appellants is that Judge Saxon has continued to hear and

consider matters in the case following the entry of the Partial Summary Judgment.

The record is utterly devoid of anything to support this unsupported claim.

5. Second Mandamus Proceeding. Appellants filed a second

mandamus petition with this court on March 12, 2015.69 That petition was denied

for reason that Appellants were not entitled to the relief sought.70 Appellants

suggest reasoning and findings supporting the order denying that mandamus relief

which do not appear in the order.71 The denial of mandamus relief was not

conditioned upon the merits of the present interlocutory appeal, or this Court’s

jurisdiction to hear it.72 Appellants have no right to an interlocutory appeal save as

expressly provided by statute.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellee prays that appeal be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

69
In re El Caballero Ranch, et al, No. 04-15-00138-CV, the fourth proceeding by Appellants
with this court on this same case.
70
Order (March 12, 2015), In re El Caballero Ranch, et al, No. 04-15-00138.
71
Response at 11.
72
Order (March 12, 2015), In re El Caballero Ranch, et al, No. 04-15-00138.

27
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 Dated: June 23, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

MOORMAN TATE HALEY
UPCHURCH & YATES, L.L.P.

By: /s/ STEVEN C. HALEY
STEVEN C. HALEY
State Bar No. 08741900
207 East Main
P.O. Box 1808
Brenham, Texas 77834-1808
Telephone: (979) 836-5664
Telecopier: (979) 830-0913
shaley@moormantate.com

MONTEZ & PATTERSON

John H. Patterson, Jr.
State Bar No. 24027716
Thornton Plaza
508 Thorton, Suite 4
Cotulla, Texas 78014
Telephone: (830) 483-5191
Telecopier: (830) 483-5192
john@montezandpatterson.com

JOE RUBIO LAW FIRM

JOE RUBIO
State Bar No. 17362100
1000 Washington St., Ste. 4
Laredo, Texas 78040
Telephone: (956) 712-2223
Telecopier: (956) 712-2225
joerubio@joerubiolawfirm.com

28
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}
 Attorneys for Appellee,

Grace River Ranch, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Steven C. Haley, do hereby certify that on the 23rd day of June, 2015, I
served a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading to the following, in
accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure:

Annalyn G. Smith
Schmoyer Reinhard, LLP
17806 I-10W, Ste. 400
San Antonio, Texas 78257
E-mail: asmith@ar-llp.com

Kimberly S. Keller
Keller Stolarczyk PLLC
234 West Bandera Road, No. 120
Boerne, Texas 78006
E-mail: kim@kellsto.com

Donato D. Ramos
Donato D. Ramos, Jr.
Law Offices of Donato D. Ramos
6721 McPherson
P.O. Box 452009
Laredo, Texas 78045
donatoramosjr@ddrlex.com

/s/ STEVEN C. HALEY
STEVEN C. HALEY

29
{18705.43065-00389679.DOCX}