Seed to Harvest Real Estate, LLC v. Carolyn Turner

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00048-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/13/2025 2:41 PM CAUSE NO. 15-25-00048-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN FIFTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/13/2025 2:41:04 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE SEED TO HARVIST REAL ESTATE, LLC, Appellants Clerk v.

CAROLYN TURNER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th District Court, Dallas County, Texas Cause No. DC-22-05065

RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S MOTION TO REINSTATE

Chad A. Norcross SBN:24039513 NORCROSS LAW 9288 Wichita Trail Frisco, Texas 75033 (214) 368-9300 - tele (877) 846-3149 – fax chad.norcross@norcrosslaw.com Attorney for Appellee, CAROLYN TURNER COMES NOW, Appellee, Carolyn Turner, (“Appellee”), in the above-entitled action filing this her Response to Appellant's Motion to Reinstate, and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court the following:

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. On May 1, 2025, Appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction, and on May 27, 2025, this Court rendered judgement dismissing Appellant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and Ordering Appellant to pay all costs incurred in the appeal.

2. On June 11, 2024, Appellant filed a Motion to Reinstate, seeking to overturn the Court's dismissal. However, the Appellant's Motion fails to address the jurisdictional deficiencies that led to the dismissal and instead relies on arguments that are irrelevant to the Court's authority to hear this matter.

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

A. Jurisdictional Issues Are Not Discretionary

3. It is well-established under Texas law that jurisdictional issues are not discretionary and cannot be waived or cured by the parties. See Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1993). A court must have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case, and if jurisdiction is lacking, the court has no authority to proceed.

4. In this case, the Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the Appellant's claims. This determination was based on the Appellant's failure to establish the necessary jurisdictional prerequisites, including but not limited to the proper invocation of the Court's authority under applicable statutes and rules.

5. The Appellant's Motion to Reinstate does not address or cure these jurisdictional deficiencies. Instead, the Motion focuses on procedural arguments that are irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue. As such, the Motion must be denied.

B. The Dismissal Was Proper and Final

6. The Court's Order of Dismissal was proper and final. The Appellant failed to take the necessary actions to establish jurisdiction, and the Court correctly dismissed the case for want of prosecution and lack of jurisdiction. The Appellant's attempt to reinstate the case is an improper attempt to circumvent the Court's ruling.

7. The Appellant has not presented any new evidence or legal arguments that would justify reinstatement. The jurisdictional issue remains unresolved, and the Court cannot proceed without proper jurisdiction.

2 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL C. Reinstitution of the Case Would Be Improper

8. Allowing the Appellant to reinstate the case without addressing the jurisdictional deficiencies would be improper and would violate the principles of judicial economy and fairness. The Court has already determined that it lacks jurisdiction, and the Appellant has failed to provide any basis for overturning this determination.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellee Carolyn Turner respectfully requests that this Court deny Appellant's Motion to Reinstate in its entirety and grant such other and further relief to which Appellee may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

NORCROSS LAW

By:/s/ Chad A. Norcross Chad A. Norcross SBN: 24039513 9288 Wichita Trail Frisco, Texas 75033 Tel: (214) 368-9300 Fax: (877) 846-3149 chad.norcross@norcrosslaw.com

3 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Chad Norcross Bar No. 24039513 chad.norcross@norcrosslaw.com Envelope ID: 102002430 Filing Code Description: Other Document Filing Description: Response to Appellant's Motion to Reinstate Status as of 6/13/2025 2:56 PM CST

Associated Case Party: Carolyn Turner

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Chad A.Norcross chad.norcross@norcrosslaw.com 6/13/2025 2:41:04 PM SENT

Jessica E.Mayfield jessica.mayfield@norcrosslaw.com 6/13/2025 2:41:04 PM SENT

Alicia Fernandez alicia.fernandez@norcrosslaw.com 6/13/2025 2:41:04 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Seed to Harvest Real Estate, LLC

Gaylene RogersLonergan grogers@lonerganlaw.com 6/13/2025 2:41:04 PM SENT