Bernard Morello v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 28, 2015·No. 03-15-00428-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

03-15-000428-cv

8380905

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

12/28/2015 3:39:32 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

NO. 03-15-00428-CV

FILED IN

3rd COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 12/28/2015 3:39:32 PM FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS JEFFREY D. KYLE AT AUSTIN Clerk

BERNARD MORELLO,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

On Appeal from Cause No. D-1-GV-06-000627 353RD Judicial District Court, Austin, Texas The Honorable Rhonda Hurley

APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF

LAPEZE & JOHNS, PLLC Keith W. Lapeze Texas Bar No. 24010176 601 Sawyer Street, Suite 650 Houston, Texas 77007 Tel. (713) 739-1010 Fax. (713) 739-1015 keith@lapezejohns.com

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... 2 REPLY POINTS ........................................................................................................ 3

A. Not Only Is Shook v. Walden “Germaine” to this Case, but it Precludes Judgment Against Morello in His Individual Capacity .................. 3

B. Based Upon Texas’s Canons of Statutory Construction, It Is Clear that the Legislature Did not Intend for an LLC’s Members to Incur Personal Liability for the Entity’s Violations of Water Code Section 7.102 ................................................................................................................ 4

C. Even Assuming that Water Code Section 7.102 Could Be Construed as Imposing Individual Liability Against Morello, the Doctrine of in Pari Materia Requires the Opposite Construction ........................................... 7

PRAYER .................................................................................................................. 10 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 11 APPENDIX .............................................................................................................. 12

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Carlson v. City of Houston, 309 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) ................ 6

Shook v. Walden, 368 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, pet. denied) ..................... 3-4, 7-8

Spurck v. Tex. Dep’t of Family Protective Servs., 396 S.W.3d 205 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no writ) ...................................... 4

Rules/Statutes

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §361.223(a) (Vernon 1989) (recodified at Tex. Water Code §7.102) ................................................................................................... 7

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 311.023(4) (West 2005)................................................... 4 TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 311.026 (West 2005) ................................................... 6-7 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §247.044 (Vernon 2014) .......................................... 5 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §247.045 (Vernon 2014) .......................................... 5 TEX. WATER CODE §7.102 (Vernon 2014) ....................................................4, 5, 6, 7

I. APPELLANT’S REPLY POINTS

A. Not Only Is Shook v. Walden “Germaine” to this Case, but it Precludes Judgment Against Morello in His Individual Capacity

Morello’s first issue for review posits that the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was error for multiple reasons, the first of which is that this Court’s opinion in Shook v. Walden requires the opposite result. See 368 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, pet. denied). In Shook, this Court examined whether a member of an LLC could be subject to individual liability in contract based on veil-piercing principles. See id. at 610. After examining the language of article 4.03 of the Texas Limited Liability Company act (“Article 4.03”), the Shook court concluded that such liability could only be imposed upon a showing that the member “used [the LLC] for the purpose of perpetrating and did perpetrate an actual fraud . . . for his ‘direct personal benefit.’” Id. at 622.

In its brief, the State acknowledges that it failed to present such proof in support of its summary judgment motion. (State’s Brief at 26.) The State nevertheless argues that “Shook is simply not germane.” According to the State, this is because Shook only governs LLC member liability where a plaintiff seeks to impose such liability through veil piercing as opposed to a situation where individual liability applies under a statute such as Texas Water Code section 7.102.

But this reading of Shook is impermissibly narrow given that under the statute applicable in this case and Shook (i.e., Article 4.03), the corporate veil acts

to shield LLC members from all “debts, obligations, or liabilities of [the] LLC.” See Shook, 368 S.W.3d at 613 (reciting language of Article 4.03(A)). Indeed, and as the Shook court noted, Article 4.03(C) goes even further, mandating that “[a] member of a limited liability company is not a proper party to proceedings by or against a limited liability company.” See id (emphasis added). Thus, Shook stands for the proposition that, absent proof that an LLC was used to perpetrate a fraud, Article 4.03 protects the member from any liability arising from action taken on behalf of the LLC. This includes any liability arising under Texas Water Code 7.102. Thus, and contrary to the State’s arguments, Shook is not only germane to this case, but it is dispositive and requires reversal of the trial court’s summary judgment.

B. Based Upon Texas’s Canons of Statutory Construction, It Is Clear that the Legislature Did not Intend for an LLC’s Members to Incur Personal Liability for the Entity’s Violations of Water Code Section 7.102

With respect to Morello’s argument that Article 4.03 shields LLC members from liability, the State also contends that the Texas Legislature did not intend for Article 4.03 to shield LLC members from the general liability provision of Water Code section 7.102. (State’s Brief at 27-28.) While the State provides no argument or analysis supporting this claim of legislative intent, strong evidence exists that the Texas Legislature did not intend for Water Code section 7.102 to impose liability on the members of an LLC.

When ascertaining the legislative intent behind a statutory provision, a court may consider many factors one of which is “common law or former statutory provisions, including laws on the same or similar subjects.” See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 311.023(4) (West 2005) (emphasis added); Spurck v. Tex. Dep’t of Family Protective Servs., 396 S.W.3d 205, 217 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no writ). The instant case constitutes a statutory enforcement action allowing injunctive relief and civil penalties relating to hazardous waste disposal pursuant to Texas Water Code sections 7.105 and 7.102. Chapter 247 of the Texas Health and Safety Code governs licensing of assisted living facilities. Like chapter 7 of the Water Code, Chapter 247 allows the State to bring a statutory enforcement action allowing injunctive relief and civil penalties relating to violations of the act. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 247.044, 247.045 (Vernon 2014). Thus, referenced provisions of the Water Code and Health and Safety Code include laws on similar subjects: civil penalties through state enforcement actions.

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

Bernard Morello v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Bernard Morello v. State (Bernard Morello v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related