Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 14-1276-CV Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard,
Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Barrera, Jenesey Barrera, and Andrea Perez appeal the trial
court's judgment in favor of Chererco, LLC, contending
the trial court erred by: (1) concluding their claims
relating to the title to certain real property were barred by
limitations; (2) concluding they failed to raise a fact issue
on their adverse possession claim; and (3) entering a final
judgment in the absence of an interested party. We affirm the
trial court's judgment.
January 5, 2001, Diana and Jose Moreno executed a special
warranty deed conveying a tract of land in Guadalupe County,
Texas (the "Property") to Esequiel Kelly Barrera.
At the time of the conveyance, Barrera was married to Mary
of 2009, the San Marcos Consolidated Independent School
District ("SMCIDS") sued Esequiel to recover
delinquent ad valorem taxes. Esequiel was personally served
with citation in the lawsuit, however, Mary Angela, whose
name did not appear on the special warranty deed, was not
given notice. The County of Guadalupe intervened in the
lawsuit alleging it also was owed delinquent taxes. On June
7, 2010, the trial court signed a judgment awarding a
personal money judgment against Esequiel and authorizing an
order of sale for the Property. On October 4, 2010, the trial
court clerk issued the order of sale. In November of 2010,
the sheriff sold the Property and executed a Sheriff's
Tax Deed conveying the Property to SMCISD, which was recorded
on November 19, 2010. On December 10, 2012, SMCISD executed a
Tax Resale Deed conveying the Property to Chererco.
16, 2014, two of Mary Angela's five adult children filed
the underlying lawsuit against Chererco to set aside the
sale. A third adult child was added as
a plaintiff in an amended petition, and Chererco filed a
third-party petition against a fourth adult child. The fifth
adult child, Dustin Poole, was never brought into the suit as
a plaintiff or third-party defendant.
filed a traditional and no evidence motion for summary
judgment asserting numerous grounds. On October 19, 2015, the
trial court signed an order granting the motion and
specifically found the adult children's claims were
barred by limitations. The order did not, however, dispose of
Chererco's claim for attorney's fees. On March 11,
2016, the trial court signed a final judgment after Chererco
withdrew its claim for attorney's fees, and this appeal
review a summary judgment de novo. Katy Venture, Ltd. v.
Cremona Bistro Corp., 469 S.W.3d 160, 163 (Tex. 2015).
To prevail on a traditional motion for summary judgment, the
movant must show "there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and the [movant] is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law." Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c). A trial court must
grant a no-evidence motion for summary judgment unless the
nonmovant produces some evidence raising a genuine issue of
material fact on each element of the nonmovant's claims
challenged in the motion. KCM Fin. LLC v. Bradshaw,
457 S.W.3d 70, 79 (Tex. 2015). We take as true all evidence
favorable to the nonmovant, resolve all conflicts in the
evidence in the non-movant's favor, and indulge every
reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the
nonmovant's favor. Katy Venture, Ltd., 469
S.W.3d at 163.
their first issue, appellants contend the trial court erred
in granting summary judgment in favor ...