AMF Bowling Centers v. Rio Ventures, Ltd. and Rio Club, LLC

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 2, 2015·No. 04-15-00525-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 04-15-00525-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 12/2/2015 4:11:00 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK

CASE NO.04-15-00525-CV

FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS IN THE SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 12/2/2015 4:11:00 PM SAN ANTONIO,TEXAS KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk

AMF BOWLING CENTERS,INC.

Appellant

RIO VENTURES,LTD., AND RIO CLUB,LLC, Appellees

Appeal from Cause No.2015cv03002 In the County Court at Law No.10 Bexar County, Texas Honorable Jason Wolff,Presiding

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

WILSON,ELSER,MOSKOWITZ,EDELMAN &DICKER,LLP Lee L. Cameron, Jr. State Bar No. 03675380 lee.cameronjr@wilsonelser.com Leonard E. Hoffman,III State Bar No. 09789700 Leonard.Hoffman@wilsonelser.com Krishna M. Oropeza State Bar No. 24037353 901 Main Street, Suite 4800 Dallas, Texas 75202 214-698-8000 214-698-11 p1 (fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

2133188v.2

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

In accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 3$.2(A)(1)(a), AMF Bowling Centers,

Inc. provides the following list of parties and counsel.

Par Counsel:

Appellant: AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. Lee L. Cameron, Jr.

State Bar No. 03675380 lee.cameronjr@wilsonelser.com Leonard E. Hoffman, III State Bar No. 09789700 Leonard.Hoffman@wilsonelser.com Kristina M. Oropeza State Bar No. 24037353 Kristina.Oropeza@wilsonelser.com 901 Main Street, Suite 4800 Dallas, Texas 75202 214-698-8000 214-698-1101 (fax)

Appellees• Metropolis Nightclubs I, L.P. Dericic J. Rodgers Rio Ventures, Ltd. State Bar No. 24002857 Rio Club, LLC Brandy Smith State Bar No. 24057666 Davis, Cedillo &Mendoza,Inc. 755 E. Mulberry Ave., Suite 500 San Antonio, Texas 78212 (210)822-6666 (210)822-1151 (fax) drodgers@lawdcm.com

ii

2133188v.2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF THE CASE............................................................................... 1

ISSUES PRESENTED............................................................................................ 3

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS............................................................................. 4

A. The Original AMF Sublease, the Metropolis Sublease, and the Rio Ventures Sublease................................................ 4

B. Proceedings in Harris County District Court........................................... 5

C. Proceedings in Bexar County District Court.........................:................. 6

STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................... 7

SL:11VIlVIARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 8

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ..................................................................... 9

I. APPELLEES HAVE NO RIGHT TO POSSESS THE PREMISES BECAUSE THE PURPORTED LEASES ARE INVALID AS A MATTER OF LAW .......................................................... 9

A. Assuming the Use of"Metropolis, Inc." was a Mere Misnomer, the Contracts Are Not Legally Valid Because the Parties Signed the Invalid Metropolis Lease Before Metropolis Nightclubs I, L.P., Existed............................................................................................. 9

B. Appellees' Ratification Argument Fails as a Matter of Law................. 14

iii

2133188v.2

II. BECAUSE THE LEASES ARE INVALID AND POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES SHOULD REVERT TO AMF,APPELLEES HAVE NO RIGHT TO ATTORNEYS'FEES .......................................... 16

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................16

PRAYER ................................................................................................17

iv

2133188v.2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Camp Mystic, Inc. v. Eastland, 399 S.W.3d 266(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.) ............................. 14

Coinmatch Copp. v. Aspenwood Apt. Co~^p., 417 S.W.3d 909(Tex. 2013) ........................................................................... 14

Commonwealth Nat'l Bank v. U.S., 573 F. Supp. 881 (N.D. Tex. 1983).................................................................. 14

Exxon CoNp. v. Emerald Oil &Gas Co., 331 S.W.3d 419(Tex. 2010) .............................................................................. 7

Flagship Hotel, Ltd. v. City ofGalveston, 117 S.W.3d 552(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) .......................... 15

HTS Se~vs., Inc. v. Hallwood Realty Pa~tne~s, L.P., 190 S.W.3d 108(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) ............. 11, 12

In ~e Hawthorne Townhomes, L.P., 282 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) ............................ 11, 12, 13

In ~e The Armand Borel Ti^ust, Order No. 09-1129, 2012 WL 6215388(Cal. Super. 2012) ............................ 14

Kahn v. Imperial Ai~po~t, L.P., 308 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) ................................................................... 11

Lesieu~^ v. Fi~ya~, 325 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, pet. denied) ................................................... 7

Loeffler v. Lyttle Indep. Sch. Dist., 211 S.W.3d 331 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied) ................................................. 10

v

2133188v.2

Payne v. Edmonson, No. O1-96-00792-CV, 1999 WL 350928, *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [lst Dist.] June 3, 1999, pet. denied) ........................... 11 Sun Ope~atin~- Ltd. P'ship v. Oatman, 911 S.W.2d 749(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, writ denied) ...................... 15

Valence Operating Co. v..Do~sett, 164 S.W.3d 656(Tex. 2005} ........................ $

Weste~nGeco, L.L.C. v. Input/Output, Inc., 244 S.W.3d 776(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) ........... 11, 12

Statutes

Tex. Prop. Code § 24.001 ................................................................................... 14

Rules

Tex. R. App. P. 38.2 ............................................................................................. ii

vi

2133188v.2

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. files this Appellant's Brief and asks the Court to

reverse the judgment of the County Court, and render judgment and possession of

the Premises at issue for AMF Bowling Centers,Inc.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant AlV~' Bowing Centers, Inc. ("ANTE'"), as landlord, filed an eviction

suit in the Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct 3, Place 3 ("J:P. Court") in Bexar'

County, Texas, for possession of real property occupied by Metropolis, Inc.,

Metropolis Nightclubs I, L.P., Rio Ventures, Ltd., and/or Rio Club, LLC. CR: 272-

280; App. A. In that eviction suit, AMF successfully argued that as a matter of law

leases fraudulently signed on behalf of Metropolis, Inc. did not give a separate and

distinct entity known as Metropolis Nightclubs I, L.P.—and, by extension, its sub-

tenants Rio Ventures, Ltd. and Rio Club, LLC (the "Rio Defendants"}—the right to

possession ofthe premises at 13307-A San Pedro Avenue, San Antonio, Texas 78216

(the "Premises"), which 1~1V~' controls as landlord. CR: 14-20, 547; App. B.

1

2133188v.2

AMF''s position was further supported by an agreed judgment from the 190th

Judicial District Court in Harris County declaring that any lease purportedly made

on behalf of Metropolis, Inc. concerning the Premises was void ab initio. CR: 264-

268; App. C. In addition to the eviction suit and Harris County proceeding, AMF

filed a suit in Bexar County District Court requesting injunctive and declaratory relief

for various breaches ofthe lease and related monetary damages.

After the J.P. Court granted ANIF's Motion for Summary Disposition and

granted possession to AMF,the Rio Defendants appealed to Bexar County Court at

Law No. 10. They moved to abate the case because of the suit in Bexar County

District Court, and AMF moved to raise the appeal bond and assess occupancy fees.

CR: 529-533, 629-634.

The County Court denied both parties' motions regarding abatement and fees,

and then ordered that the Rio Defendants retain possession of the Premises even

though neither side had filed a motion or presented arguments on that topic. CR: 706,

708, 710. After AMF moved for reconsideration based on due process violations, the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

AMF Bowling Centers v. Rio Ventures, Ltd. and Rio Club, LLC, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

AMF Bowling Centers v. Rio Ventures, Ltd. and Rio Club, LLC (AMF Bowling Centers v. Rio Ventures, Ltd. and Rio Club, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett
164 S.W.3d 656 (Texas Supreme Court, 2005)
Westerngeco, L.L.C. v. Input/Output, Inc.
246 S.W.3d 776 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Flagship Hotel, Ltd. v. City of Galveston
117 S.W.3d 552 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Hawthorne Townhomes, L.P. v. Branch
282 S.W.3d 131 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
Kahn v. Imperial Airport, L.P.
308 S.W.3d 432 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
HTS Services, Inc. v. Hallwood Realty Partners, L.P.
190 S.W.3d 108 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Manges v. Willoughby
505 S.W.2d 379 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1974)
Sun Operating Ltd. Partnership v. Oatman
911 S.W.2d 749 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Loeffler v. Lytle Independent School District
211 S.W.3d 331 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Ullrich v. Cadco, Inc.
244 S.W.3d 772 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)
Lesieur v. Fryar
325 S.W.3d 242 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., LC
331 S.W.3d 419 (Texas Supreme Court, 2010)
Commonwealth National Bank v. United States
573 F. Supp. 881 (N.D. Texas, 1983)
Amco Trust, Inc. v. Naylor
317 S.W.2d 47 (Texas Supreme Court, 1958)
Jones v. El Paso Natural Gas Products Company
391 S.W.2d 748 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)