Opinion
No. 05-16-00080-CV
01-28-2016
IN RE LOWELL MERRITT, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 296-01387-2009
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Evans, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Evans
In this original proceeding, relator argues that he is improperly confined because the trial court's order is void and any actions that the real parties in interest have taken or take to enforce their rights under the trial court's judgment must be "reversed." Specifically, he complains, the trial court has been "issuing orders without listing a 'numbered statute' that shows a mandatory venue ~ much less a numbered statute that shows Collin County has 'subject matter jurisdiction'" that can overcome the mandatory venue provision he has asserted in resisting the trial court's orders.
The trial court, as a district court of general jurisdiction, had subject-matter jurisdiction over relator's action. Gordon v. Jones, 196 S.W.3d 376, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Jurisdiction and venue are not synonymous. State v. Pounds, 525 S.W.2d 547, 550 (Tex .Civ. App.—Amarillo 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.). "Venue" refers to the propriety of prosecuting, in a particular forum, a suit on a given subject matter with specific parties, over which the forum must, necessarily, have subject-matter jurisdiction. See id. The transfer of a case from one court to another, therefore, "pertains to venue, not jurisdiction." Gordon, 196 S.W.3d at 383. Therefore, the trial court's order is not void. Moreover, venue may be waived if not challenged in due order and on a timely basis. Id. Nothing in the record shows that relator filed a timely venue challenge.
Accordingly, we DENY the petition.
/David W. Evans/
DAVID EVANS
JUSTICE 160080F.P05