Tonja Lynch and Felicia Lynch v. Kenneth and Brenda Pierce

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 13, 2025
• Docket: 06-24-00099-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

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

No. 06-24-00099-CV

TONJA LYNCH AND FELICIA LYNCH, Appellants

V.

KENNETH AND BRENDA PIERCE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 123rd District Court Panola County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022-106

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

Kenneth and Brenda Pierce sued thirty parties, including Tonja Lynch and Felicia Lynch,

to partition the surface estate of 121.091 acres, more or less, of land in Panola County, Texas

(the Property).1 The Lynches appeal the trial court’s final judgment of partition on the grounds

that the trial court erred by failing to consider their cross-claim raising the issue of trespass to try

title. Because title to the Property was fully litigated in a different lawsuit, and because the

Lynches’ answer to the partition proceeding was untimely, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Pierces owned an undivided 0.31633333 interest in the Property, the Lynches each

owned an undivided 0.03968750 interest in the Property, and the remaining parties, who are not

involved in this appeal, owned the remainder interest. Despite being properly served with the

partition suit in 2022, the Lynches failed to file a timely answer.2

On August 16, 2022, the trial court appointed special commissioners to assist in

effectuating the partition. It was not until December 18, 2024, that the Lynches first answered

the lawsuit, and not until December 19 that they filed a trespass to try title counterclaim.3 On

December 17, 2024, the commissioners filed their report with the trial court. The commissioners

reviewed the “title conveyances,” determined that the Property was owned by thirty-one

undivided interest owners and found that the Property was susceptible to partition in kind. After

studying the surface estate, the commissioners recommended that the Pierces, who owned the

1 The Property is more fully described as a 121-acre parcel of land situated in “the A. DuBoise, Jr., Survey, A-161, Panola County, Texas, and being the same land described in that certain Warranty Deed dated December 6, 1923, from H. N. Nelson to Frank Barryer, Phillip Barryer, Bennie Barryer, and Odis Barryer, recorded in Volume 64, Page 604, of the Deed Records of Panola County, Texas.” 2 See TEX. R. CIV. P. 99(b) (providing the deadline to file an answer to a lawsuit). 3 No other interest owner objected to the partition proceedings. 2 majority interest, be awarded 38.390 acres of the Property and divided the remaining acreage

among the other owners in accordance with their respective interests.4

On December 19, the day of the final partition hearing, the Lynches filed an amended

answer containing an unverified plea in abatement and a trespass to try title counterclaim. At the

hearing, the trial court denied the plea in abatement and struck the Lynches’ answers and cross-

claim as untimely. The trial court also noted that the issue of title to the Property had been

finally decided in March 2022, as the result of litigation in cause number 2020-170, styled

Kenneth Pierce v. Felicia Pierce and Tonja Hawthorne. Accordingly, the trial court confirmed

the commissioners’ report and entered its final judgment of partition.5

On appeal, the Lynches’ pro se briefing raises issues related to title, but those issues were

fully litigated in another lawsuit and were the subject of a final 2022 judgment, which the

Lynches did not appeal. Moreover, proof of title was presented to the commissioners. Because

the Lynches’ briefing presents no other cognizable point of error as to why the trial court erred

by confirming the commissioners’ report and entering a final judgment of partition in this case,

we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice

Date Submitted: May 21, 2025 Date Decided: June 13, 2025

4 The commissioners provided metes and bounds descriptions for each parcel of the divided Property. 5 After the appeal of the final judgment in this case, the Lynches were declared to be vexatious litigants. 3