Mendez v. Brewer

64 Citing cases

  1. Ghidoni v. Stone Oak, Inc.

    966 S.W.2d 573 (Tex. App. 1998)   Cited 39 times
    Holding whether document constituted modification of prior lease agreement was fact issue properly presented to jury

    Once the propriety of the intervention is raised, the intervenor must show she has a "present justiciable interest," "legal or equitable, in the lawsuit." Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex. 1982). If an intervenor fails to prove that she has a present justiciable interest in the proceeding, the trial court "may dismiss the intervention," id., or, in appropriate circumstances, sever or separately try it.

  2. Ne. Neighbors Coal. v. Tex. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality

    NO. 03-11-00277-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 28, 2013)   Cited 4 times

    Sufficient cause exists for striking an intervention when a would-be intervenor faced with a motion to strike cannot demonstrate a justiciable interest in the lawsuit. Zeifman, 229 S.W.3d at 464 (citing Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498, 499-500 (Tex. 1982); Law Offices of Windle Turley, P.C. v. Ghiasinejad, 109 S.W.3d 68, 70 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); McCord v. Watts, 777 S.W.2d 809, 812 (Tex. App.—Austin 1989, no writ)). This justiciable interest may be either legal or equitable in nature, but must be present and not merely remote or contingent.

  3. Doe v. Carroll

    No. 03-08-00556-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 23, 2009)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the Does' intervention in the Carrolls' divorce because the Does, parents asserting sexual assault and civil assault claims against Mr. Carroll on behalf of their child, did not have a justiciable interest to seek discovery and an equitable division of the Carrolls' assets and because asserting the assault claims in the divorce would have complicated the divorce

    Tex. R. Civ. P. 60. When an intervention is challenged by a party's motion to strike, the intervenor bears the burden to demonstrate a "justiciable interest" in the pending suit. In re Union Carbine Corp., 273 S.W.3d 152, 155 (Tex. 2008); Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex. 1982); Zeifman v. Michels, 229 S.W.3d 460, 464 (Tex.App. 2007, pet. denied). The Texas Supreme Court explained the "justiciable interest" requirement:

  4. Zeifman v. Michels

    229 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. App. 2007)   Cited 22 times
    Reversing trial court's order striking Zeifman's intervention and remanding for further proceedings on issue of sanctions

    Sufficient cause exists for striking an intervention when a would-be intervenor faced with a motion to strike cannot demonstrate a justiciable interest in the lawsuit. Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498, 499-500 (Tex. 1982); see Law Offices of Windle Turley, P.C. v. Ghiasinejad, 109 S.W.3d 68, 70 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); McCord v. Watts, 777 S.W.2d 809, 812 (Tex.App.-Austin 1989, no writ). This justiciable interest may be either legal or equitable in nature but must be present and not merely remote or contingent.

  5. Zeifman v. Michels

    No. 03-06-00598-CV (Tex. App. May. 11, 2007)

    Sufficient cause exists for striking an intervention when a would-be intervenor faced with a motion to strike cannot demonstrate a justiciable interest in the lawsuit. Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498, 499-500 (Tex. 1982); see Law Offices of Windle Turley, P.C. v. Ghiasinejad, 109 S.W.3d 68, 70 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); McCord v. Watts, 777 S.W.2d 809, 812 (Tex.App.-Austin 1989, no writ). This justiciable interest may be either legal or equitable in nature but must be present and not merely remote or contingent.

  6. Eichner v. Dominguez

    No. 14-18-00399-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 8, 2022)   Cited 4 times
    Stating that foreclosure does not terminate interests in the foreclosed real estate that are senior to the mortgage being foreclosed

    Once a motion to strike has been filed, the burden shifts to the intervenor to show a justiciable interest in the lawsuit. Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex. 1982).

  7. In re McClellan Creek Ranch, LLC

    No. 07-19-00135-CV (Tex. App. May. 23, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Once a motion to strike has been filed, the burden shifts to the intervenor to show a justiciable interest in the lawsuit. Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex. 1982). "[T]he 'justiciable interest' requirement is of paramount importance: it defines the category of non-parties who may, without consultation with or permission from the original parties or the court, interject their interests into a pending suit to which the intervenors have not been invited."

  8. In re Estate of Keener

    NUMBER 13-18-00007-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 21, 2019)   1 Legal Analyses

    If any party to the pending suit moves to strike the intervention, then the intervenor has the burden to show a justiciable interest in the pending suit. In re Union Carbide, 273 S.W.3d at 154-55; Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex. 1982); In re Estate of York, 951 S.W.2d 122, 126 n.3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997, no writ) ("[T]he intervenor should be given an opportunity to explain, and show proof of, its interest in the lawsuit."); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Pennzoil Co., 866 S.W.2d 248, 250 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993, no writ) (concluding that "a motion to strike a plea in intervention is akin to a special exception or to a motion for summary judgment, asserting that, as a matter of law, the opposing party could not have brought the action or would not be able to defeat recovery"). While the determination of whether a justiciable interest exists based on the pleadings would appear to present a pure question of law, the ultimate determination of whether an intervention should be struck, even if a justiciable interest is shown, has long been held to be vested in the sound discretion of the trial court.

  9. In re A.G.

    No. 05-18-00725-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 12, 2018)   Cited 1 times
    Applying section 102.004(b) to non-parent with whom child had been placed by CPS for two weeks

    We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to strike a petition in intervention for abuse of discretion. See Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex. 1982); In re J.P., 196 S.W.3d 434, 440 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner, "without reference to any guiding rules or principles."

  10. In re Interest of E.C.

    No. 05-17-00723-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 20, 2017)   Cited 3 times

    Thus, Foster Parents must show the trial court abused its discretion in striking their petition in intervention. See Mendez v. Brewer, 626 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex.1982) ("It is settled law that a motion to strike an intervention is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court."). Before reaching that issue, we first consider the threshold issue of whether Foster Parents had standing to intervene in the Department's suit.