In Re Shawnee Creek Land Owners Association v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 25, 2023
• Docket: 06-23-00058-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-23-00058-CV

IN RE SHAWNEE CREEK LAND OWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION

Shawnee Creek Landowners Association, Inc., et al. (collectively Relators), have filed a

petition for a writ of mandamus, asking this Court to grant their petition and to direct the

Honorable Jeff M. Addison,1 presiding judge of the 102nd Judicial District Court of Red River

County, to vacate its order denying Relators’ Rule 91a motion to dismiss and to enter an order

dismissing Real Parties in Interest’s (collectively the Landowners) claims, in full or in part. We

deny Relators’ requested mandamus relief.

I. Background

On February 22, 2023, the Landowners filed a lawsuit against Relators, asserting claims

for (1) declaratory judgment, (2) breach of restrictive covenants, (3) violation of Section 12.002

of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, (4) violation of the Texas Debt Collection Act,

(5) trespass, and (6) agency, conspiracy, and respondeat superior. In addition to their request for

declaratory relief, the Landowners asked for actual, consequential, special, and exemplary

damages and attorney fees. On April 26, 2023, Relators filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to

Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the claims raised in the

Landowners’ original petition were baseless in fact and in law. After a hearing,2 the trial court

denied Relators’ motion to dismiss.

1 Both the Relators and the Real Parties in Interest incorrectly refer to the Respondent as the Honorable Jeff M. Anderson. The Honorable Jeff M. Addison is the current presiding judge of the 102nd Judicial District Court of Red River County and signed the order at issue in this case.

Although the parties refer to the hearing on Relators’ motion to dismiss, and the trial court’s order denying the 2

motion states that a hearing was held, a transcript of the hearing was not included in the mandamus record. 2 III. Relators’ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

Relators filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, claiming that the trial court abused its

discretion by failing to dismiss all the Landowners’ causes of action and asking this Court to

order the trial court to vacate the order denying its motion to dismiss. Relators also requested

that this Court enter an order dismissing the Landowners’ claims, in full or in part.

The Court, having examined and fully considered Relators’ petition for a writ of

mandamus, the Landowners’ response, Relators’ reply, the mandamus record, and the applicable

law, is of the opinion that the mandamus petition should be denied.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we deny Relators’ petition for a writ of mandamus.

Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice

Date Submitted: August 24, 2023 Date Decided: August 25, 2023