In Re Jerald Ray Smith, Gina Allen Smith, and Texas Farm Credit Services, FLCA v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 30, 2024
• Docket: 09-24-00135-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00135-CV __________________

IN RE JERALD RAY SMITH, GINA ALLEN SMITH, AND TEXAS FARM CREDIT SERVICES, FLCA

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 260th District Court of Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. D210303-C __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Relators Jerald Ray Smith, Gina Allen

Smith, and Texas Farm Credit Services, FLCA, argue the trial court committed a

clear of abuse of discretion by denying Relators’ no-evidence motion for summary

judgment. Relators contend the motion for summary judgment challenged an

essential element on which the Real Parties in Interest, Craig Chesson and Lori

Chesson, had the burden of proof, and the Chessons failed to produce legally

sufficient evidence to overcome that challenge.

1 In 2019, the Smiths acquired certain real property located in Orange County,

Texas, through a Warranty Deed with Vendor’s Lien executed by Dave Leslie

Chesson Sr., Independent Executor of the Estate of Clyde Mitchell Chesson,

Deceased. Texas Farm Credit Services, FLCA, financed the transaction. In Trial

Cause Number D210,303-C, Lori A. Chesson and Craig Chesson sought a

declaration of their right, title and interest in an undivided one-half interest in the

property, which they alleged derived from the community property interest of

Lovera Chesson, the spouse of Clyde Mitchell Chesson. As one of their affirmative

defenses, the Smiths and Texas Farm Credit assert they are bona fide purchasers for

value without notice of any alleged equitable title held by or through Lovera

Chesson.

In a combined traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment

filed by the Smiths and Texas Farm Credit, they argued in part that the Chessons

have no evidence that the Smiths’ purchase was made in bad faith, that the purchase

was not made for value, or that the Smiths and Texas Farm Credit had notice of any

third-party claim or interest. The Chessons’ response to the Smiths’ and Texas Farm

Credit’s no-evidence motion included excerpts from the Smiths’ depositions,

various emails, and title commitments that the Chessons argued put the Smiths and

Texas Farm Credit on notice that the current ownership of Lovera’s interest was

outstanding such that they cannot qualify as bona fide purchasers.

2 In their mandamus petition, Relators argue the title commitments are not

instruments forming an essential link in the chain of title and therefore as a matter

of law the title commitments cannot put them on inquiry notice. They contend the

Chessons produced no evidence that the Smiths and Texas Farm Credit ever received

or reviewed one of the title commitments. Relators argue mandamus relief is

appropriate because the case has been on file for almost three years and a favorable

summary judgment ruling would resolve other associated suits, including the

Chessons’ suit against the title company, the Chessons’ suit against the Executor of

Clyde Chesson’s estate, the executor’s suit against the title company, and the

Chessons’ suit against Chevron Phillips Chemical LP.

Generally, mandamus relief is “unavailable when a trial court denies summary

judgment, no matter how meritorious the motion.” In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc.,

275 S.W.3d 458, 465 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus relief may be

necessary, however, when the very act of proceeding to trial, regardless of the

outcome, would defeat the substantive right involved or would cause a knowing

waste of resources. In re Ill. Nat’l. Inc. Co., 685 S.W.3d 826, 842-43 (Tex. 2024)

(orig. proceeding) (quoting McAllen Med. Ctr., 275 S.W.3d at 465-66).

We have examined the mandamus petition and the supporting appendix. We

conclude that Relators have failed to establish that proceeding to trial on the

3 contested issues will defeat the substantive right involved or cause a knowing waste

of resources. See id. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on May 29, 2024 Opinion Delivered May 30, 2024

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.