Court Holds That Venue For Suit Over Royalties By A Trustee Was Proper Due To Statutory Venue Provision Even Though The Suit Did Not Pertain To The Trust

Winstead PC
Contact

Winstead PC

In In re Equinor Tex. Onshore Props., a trustee filed two cases against different defendants in the same county regarding a royalty dispute under oil and gas leases. No. 05-20-00578-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 8042 (Tex. App.—Dallas October 7, 2020, original proceeding). Because the second-filed case was transferred to Dallas County, Texas, lacked dominance over the interrelated case still pending in the original venue, the court of appeals held that mandamus relief was appropriate to order the trial court to grant the plea in abatement. In conjunction with this ruling, the court resolved whether Dallas was an appropriate venue for the second case. The court held:

Equinor objected to venue in Dallas County by denying “Plaintiffs [sic] venue facts and contention that venue is appropriate under Tex. Prop. Code § 115.002 because this action is not brought pursuant to Tex. Prop. Code § 115.011 [sic] which pertains to administration of a trust.” The objection rests on a misreading of the property code and the statutory language. “[S]ection 115.001 was amended in 2007 to provide that a district court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over not only all proceedings concerning a trust, but also ‘all proceedings by or against a trustee.'” Thus, Equinor’s challenge failed to demonstrate improper venue pursuant to the property code. In addition, although Equinor argues to this Court that Bank failed to establish it maintained more than a mailbox or a designated agent or representative in Dallas County, in the trial court Equinor failed to specifically challenge Dallas County as Bank’s principal place of business. Properly pleaded venue facts “shall be taken as true unless specifically denied by the adverse party.” “Specifically denied” requires denial of the challenged fact; not just denial of unspecified facts upon which the plaintiff relies for its venue choice. Equinor failed to specifically deny Bank’s venue facts, and accordingly those facts are presumed true. Bank’s third amended petition pleaded facts sufficient to lay venue in Dallas County pursuant to the property code.

Id.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Winstead PC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Winstead PC
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Winstead PC on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide