Opinion
No. 05-16-00300-CV
06-16-2017
LYNNE DUGGAN, Appellant v. TANGLEWOOD VILLA OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AND TOM MADDOCK, PRESIDENT, Appellees
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2015-1-091CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Fillmore, Whitehill, and Boatright
Opinion by Justice Fillmore
Pro se appellant Lynne Duggan appeals the trial court's dismissal of her lawsuit for want of prosecution. In four issues Duggan asserts: (1) the trial court and county clerk erred by taxing service of process and court fees against her because she is deemed indigent and by failing to perfect service of process on named defendants, (2) the trial court erred in not transferring her case to a district court and not granting a change in venue, (3) the court reporter erred by not promptly including an audio recording as part of the reporter's record when twice requested to do so and providing a reporter's record with "discrepancies," and (4) there is factually insufficient evidence to support the trial court's judgment. We vacate the trial court's judgment dismissing Duggan's lawsuit for want of prosecution and dismiss this cause for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Background
In the lawsuit underlying this appeal, Duggan sued appellees Tanglewood Villa Owners Association, Inc. and its president, Tom Maddock, in County Court at Law Number 1 of Grayson County, Texas, seeking a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction to prevent the defendants from "terminating her water utility" and asserting a claim for damages of $6,456.48 allegedly owed by Tanglewood.
Duggan also named Hank Dewitt, Donna Northam, and Kirk Griffith as defendants in the lawsuit, but those defendants were not served with citation and did not appear.
About a month prior to the January 12, 2016 setting of a non-jury trial in this case, Duggan filed a "motion" amending the amount of damages sought "from the amount of $6,255.48 to $2,006,255.48 for compensatory, punitive, pain and suffering, and future damages." When the case was called for trial on January 12, 2016, Duggan sought a continuance based on her failure to obtain legal representation and advised the trial court that she had increased the amount of damages sought to over $2,000,000. The trial court informed Duggan that the county court at law in which the case was pending does not have jurisdiction over a suit seeking damages in excess of $2,000,000. The trial court granted Duggan's request for a continuance of the trial setting, and the case was again set for non-jury trial on February 1, 2016.
Apparently recognizing that her pleading for alleged damages of over $2,000,000 exceeded the jurisdictional limits of Grayson County Court at Law Number 1, Duggan filed on February 1, 2016, a request that the trial court transfer the case to "the Plano District Court" for trial. Duggan also sought a change of venue to "the Plano District Court" because the defendants' attorney "feels too comfortable in the local courts and enters the Judges' chambers without the Pro Se Plaintiff."
When the case was called for trial on February 1, 2016, Duggan indicated she was not prepared to proceed with the prosecution of her lawsuit because no attorney had appeared to represent her and she believed she "need[ed] an attorney to help [her] proceed." She also again stated to the trial court that she had "added damages" in excess of the jurisdictional limit of the county court at law, and the trial court advised Duggan the damages she sought were clearly outside the county court at law's jurisdiction.
The trial court dismissed Duggan's case for want of prosecution. Duggan filed this appeal.
Discussion
Grayson County Court at Law Number 1 is a statutory county court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 25.0931(1) (West 2004). In addition to other jurisdiction provided by law, a statutory county court exercising civil jurisdiction concurrent with the constitutional jurisdiction of the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the district court in "civil cases in which the matter in controversy exceeds $500 but does not exceed $200,000, excluding interest, statutory or punitive damages and penalties, and attorney's fees and costs, as alleged on the face of the petition." Id. § 25.003(c)(1) (West Supp. 2016); see also id. § 24.007(b) (West Supp. 2016) (district court has original jurisdiction of civil case in which amount in controversy is more than $500, exclusive of interest). The trial court had jurisdiction over this action only if the amount in controversy was more than $500 but not more than $200,000. See, e.g., Eris v. Giannakopoulos, 369 S.W.3d 618, 621-22 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. dism'd). Duggan sought damages in excess of $2,000,000, an amount outside the jurisdiction of the county court at law in which the suit was pending.
Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal and may not be waived by the parties. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993). "[T]he jurisdiction of the appellate court as to the merits of a case extends no further than that of the court from which the appeal is taken." Pearson v. State, 159 Tex. 66, 71, 315 S.W.2d 935, 938 (1958); see also Dallas Cty. Appraisal Dist. v. Funds Recovery, Inc., 887 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, writ denied). If the trial court lacked jurisdiction, the appellate court has jurisdiction only to set aside the judgment and dismiss the cause. Funds Recovery, Inc., 887 S.W.2d at 468; see also Phalen v. Mauceli, No. 05-15-00031-CV, 2016 WL 308587, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
On the face of Duggan's pleading, and as she confirmed to the trial court, Duggan pleaded for an amount of damages outside the jurisdictional limit of the county court at law in which her lawsuit was pending. Duggan requested the trial court to transfer the case to "the Plano District Court" for trial. Section 74.121(b) of the government code provides that the judge of a statutory county court "may transfer a case to the docket of the district court, except that a case may not be transferred without the consent of the judge of the court to which it is being transferred and may not be transferred unless it is within the jurisdiction of the court to which it is transferred." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 74.121(b) (West 2013). Section 74.121(b) allows for a permissive, not mandatory, transfer to the district court of the county in which the statutory county court is located. See id. Duggan did not request the trial court to transfer the case to a Grayson County district court. Rather, Duggan sought a transfer of her case to "the Plano District Court." See State v. Kurtz, 152 S.W.3d 72, 73 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (city of Plano, Texas, is located in Collin County and Denton County).
Because Duggan's claim of damages of over $2,000,000 exceeded the trial court's jurisdiction, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Duggan's lawsuit, and it had no authority to entertain Duggan's request that the case be "transferred" or for a change of venue to "the Plano District Court." See Tex. Bd. of Law Exam'rs v. Little, No. 03-09-00342-CV, 2009 WL 5149950, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 31, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("Regarding the powers of a court lacking jurisdiction, the trial court said it best: 'It is axiomatic that a judge without jurisdiction can only take one action in a case and that is to sign a dismissal.'"). Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's order dismissing Duggan's lawsuit for want of prosecution, and we dismiss this cause for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Funds Recovery, Inc., 887 S.W.2d at 468; see also Mauceli, 2016 WL 308587, at *4.
Duggan also sought a change of venue to "the Plano District Court." The record is devoid of the requisite filings required by rule of civil procedure 257 in support of a permissive motion to transfer venue. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 257 (change of venue under rule of civil procedure 257 requires motion supported by affidavit of movant and "the affidavit of at least three credible persons, residents of the county in which the suit is pending").
Based on our disposition of this appeal, we do not address Duggan's four appellate issues. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.
/Robert M. Fillmore/
ROBERT M. FILLMORE
JUSTICE 160300F.P05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Grayson County, Texas,
Trial Court Cause No. 2015-1-091CV.
Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, Justices Whitehill, and Boatright participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial court's judgment and DISMISS the cause for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal. Judgment entered this 16th day of June, 2017.