Stuart N. Auld v. Southwest Petroleum Company, L.P., DRC Petroleum, Ltd. and Charles E. Hammond

Citation: Not availableDocket: 08-21-00114-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; November 2, 2022; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Stuart N. Auld appeals pro se from the trial court's orders that granted summary judgment and dismissed his claims against Southwest Petroleum Company, L.P., DRC Petroleum, LTD, and Charles E. Hammond for want of prosecution and severance. Auld initially sued these parties and his brother, John W. Auld Jr., in June 2016, alleging multiple causes of action related to real property interests in Kansas and Winkler County, Texas, as well as expectancy of inheritance. His claims included Quiet Title Action, Unlawful Conversion, Tortious Interference, Fraudulent Concealment, and more, with relevant deeds attached to his petition.

In November 2020, Hammond filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Auld responded in December, but his motion to compel discovery was denied. The summary judgment hearing was postponed to March 2021. On April 23, 2021, the trial court granted Hammond's motion for summary judgment and severance, dismissing all claims against him without specifying the grounds. The court also granted motions to dismiss filed by Southwest and DRC, effectively severing Auld's claims into a new cause number. Following the dismissal, Auld filed a motion for a new trial and subsequently appealed.

The appellate court reviewed the trial court's summary judgment under a de novo standard, affirming the decision. The court noted that a motion for summary judgment must specify its grounds and that, when reviewing such motions, evidence favorable to the nonmovant is taken as true, placing the burden on the nonmovant to demonstrate genuine issues of material fact.

A no-evidence motion for summary judgment is granted when there is a lack of evidence for essential elements of a claim or defense on which the opposing party bears the burden of proof at trial, as outlined in TEX.R.CIV.P. 166a(i). The respondent must produce more than a scintilla of evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact. A motion for a new trial was filed on June 28, 2021, but the Appellant stated May 11, 2021, in the certificate of service.

For equitable adjudication, points of error are interpreted liberally, but pro se litigants must meet procedural standards comparable to licensed attorneys. Under TEX.R.APP.P. 38.1, an appellant's brief must present clear arguments with proper citations and a concise statement of pertinent facts, supported by record references. Briefs that contain only conclusory statements without citations fail to satisfy these requirements, leading to waiver of the complaint. Appellate courts are not obligated to independently review the record for error.

In this case, the Appellant did not provide adequate record citations to support his claims, leading the opposing parties to challenge his factual assertions. The Appellant’s brief lacked sufficient citations in the 'Statement of Facts' and contained mostly unsupported arguments, violating TEX.R.APP.P. 38.1(f). His arguments were unclear and largely based on irrelevant legal authority from other jurisdictions. Consequently, all issues on appeal have been waived due to non-compliance with procedural rules. Specifically, in Issue One, the Appellant contests the summary judgment order’s validity for failing to address all issues, while in Issue Five, he argues that the trial court erred by disregarding relevant facts and law.

Appellant contests the appropriateness of the summary judgment but fails to substantiate his claim with legal arguments. His position is largely generalized, asserting the need for the Texas courts to quiet title of a Mineral Deed in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellant and other beneficiary owners, while demanding restitution and damages due to the Defendant/Appellee’s alleged illegal actions. The relation of this argument to the validity of the summary judgment remains unclear. The trial court's order granting summary judgment dismissed all claims against Hammond and expressly stated the intent to dispose of the case, thus qualifying as a final and appealable judgment under Texas law (Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.). The judgment confirmed that Hammond was entitled to summary judgment after reviewing all relevant pleadings and responses, and it explicitly denied all relief sought by Appellant against Hammond, severing the claims for separate adjudication.

Additionally, on the same day, the court also dismissed claims against Southwest and DRC, rendering the combined orders final and appealable. Appellant's claims against all mentioned parties were dismissed and severed into a single action. Appellant's arguments regarding this issue have been deemed waived due to a lack of substantiation (TEX.R.APP.P. 38.1).

In Issue Five, Appellant continues to challenge the no-evidence summary judgment but remains vague and fails to demonstrate legally sufficient evidence for his claims, including Quiet Title and other causes of action. The citations provided do not adequately support his argument, leading to a waiver of this issue as well (TEX.R.APP.P. 38.1).

In Issues Two, Twelve, and Thirteen, Appellant asserts improper venue, claiming it should be in Andrews County rather than Winkler County. He alleges violations of statutory provisions but then shifts to argue that attempted property transfers are void under trust law and the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, focusing more on the alleged transfer violations than on the merits of his venue claims.

Appellant claims that Judge John L. Pool, presiding over the 109th Judicial District Court of Winkler County, was in Andrews County during virtual hearings on March 3, 2021. Appellant filed his suit in Winkler County but failed to provide sufficient argument or record citations to support the assertion that Winkler County was an improper venue, resulting in a waiver of any venue-related claims. In Issues Eleven and Twelve, Appellant contests the trial court's dismissal of his suit without findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding properties in Kansas and Texas, yet he fails to provide legal authority or record citations, leading to a waiver of these claims. In Issue Thirteen, Appellant argues that severance was inappropriate due to Appellees' "unclean hands," but again provides no supporting legal authority or record citations, resulting in a waiver. 

In Issue Three, Appellant contends he was denied a jury trial and due process due to lack of notice regarding the court's operations post-COVID-19 closures. However, without record citations or legal authority, this claim is also waived. Issues Four and Eight similarly assert that summary judgment was improper due to incomplete discovery and RICO violations, but Appellant fails to provide supporting citations or coherent legal arguments, leading to waivers. 

Issue Six, which asserts that Appellant's appeal was timely, is noted as moot since the court previously acknowledged the timeliness in a letter dated August 13, 2021. In Issue Seven, Appellant argues the trial court erred by not holding a hearing on dismissal and severance, alleging violations of due process concerning property interests, but does not substantiate this claim with adequate legal support.

Appellant argues that the lower court inadequately reviewed their affidavits, exhibits, and pleadings, and failed to follow proper court procedures, such as holding status conferences and issuing timely rulings. This argument is deemed waived due to the lack of record or legal citation, as per TEX.R.APP.P. 38.1. In Issue Nine, Appellant claims that property transfers are void under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act but fails to provide necessary citations, resulting in waiver. Additionally, any claims regarding Kansas property were dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. In Issue Ten, Appellant accuses Appellees of lack of candor and ethics violations, relying on unsupported statements and failing to cite specific acts or relevant legal authority, leading to waiver of this issue as well. The court emphasizes that without supporting citations and coherent legal analysis, no issues are presented for review. Consequently, all issues on appeal are waived, and the court affirms the lower court's decision, denying all pending motions, including Appellant's motion to supplement the record.