Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DEK-M Nationwide, Ltd. v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District

March 7, 2017

DEK-M NATIONWIDE, LTD, Appellant
v.
DAVID HILL INDIVIDUALLY & D/B/A DOH OIL CO., CASSIE MOSELEY, DAVID MOSELEY AND COLORADO COUNTY CENTRALAPPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellees

         On Appeal from the 2nd 25th District Court Colorado County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23, 859

          Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Brown

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Tracy Christopher Justice

         After the Colorado County Appraisal District obtained a delinquent-tax judgment against royalty-interest owner Walter Willis, Willis gave a security interest in the property to a creditor. Before the District sold the property, Willis's creditor purported to sell the property to its affiliated company DEK-M Nationwide LTD at a non-judicial foreclosure sale for a nominal sum. DEK-M then sued the District and those who bought the property at the District's sale.

         DEK-M now appeals the summary judgment rendered against it on its trespass-to-try-title, quiet-title, equitable-lien, conversion, unjust-enrichment, and declaratory-judgment claims. Because DEK-M has not challenged all of the grounds on which the trial court may have rendered summary judgment against it, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

         I. Background

         After Walter Willis failed to pay the taxes owed on his royalty interests in three tracts, the District sued Willis to collect the delinquent taxes and to foreclose on its tax lien against the property. While the tax suit was pending, Kenneth D. Eichner, P.C. ("the Creditor") sued Willis for non-payment for its services. The Creditor won its suit and filed an abstract of judgment in Colorado County. A few months later, the District obtained a judgment against Willis.

         Less than three weeks after the court rendered judgment for the District in the delinquent-tax suit, Willis purported to give the Creditor security interests in the royalty interests. The Creditor recorded the security agreement and the deed of trust.

         Nothing further happened for two years. In January 2013, however, the trustee on the Creditor's deed of trust began the nonjudicial-foreclosure process, and a few weeks later, the District obtained an order of sale. On February 5, 2013, the trustee on the Creditor's deed of trust sold the property to its affiliated company DEK-M.[1] The District posted its notice of sale the next day.

         About three weeks after DEK-M's deed was recorded, the District sold the royalty interests. David Hill, individually and d/b/a DOH Oil Co., bought the royalty interest in one tract, and David and Cassie Moseley bought the royalty interests in the two remaining tracts. We refer to Hill and the Moseleys collectively as "the Buyers." Two months after DEK-M recorded its deed, the Buyers recorded their deeds to the same property.

         When DEK-M attempted to collect the royalty payments and learned that the payments instead were being made to the Buyers, it sued the District and the Buyers.[2] DEK-M asserted claims against the Buyers for trespass to try title, or in the alternative, to quiet title and for an equitable lien. DEK-M also alleged that the Buyers converted the royalty payments or were unjustly enriched by receiving them. Against the District, DEK-M sought only declarations that the tax-foreclosure sale did not transfer title; that DEK-M is entitled to the royalty payments; and that the District failed to comply with notice provisions under the Tax Code.

         The District filed a motion for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment. The Buyers adopted an earlier summary-judgment motion filed by the District, and sought summary judgment on two additional grounds. After granting the District's and the Buyers' motions without stating the grounds on which it relied, the trial court signed a final judgment.

         II. Analysis

         If a party successfully moves for summary judgment on multiple grounds and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which it relied, we will uphold the ruling unless the appellant negates every ground on which the judgment could have been granted. See DeWolf v. Kohler, 452 S.W.3d 373, 388 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist] 2014, no pet.); Wilkinson v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank Trust Servs., No. 14-13-00111-CV, 2014 WL 3002400, at *5 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.