Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
appeal from the 149th District Court of Brazoria County,
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa.
ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice.
Joe Henderson appeals the trial court's orders granting
appellee Marilyn Kay Blalock's motions for summary
judgment in appellate cause numbers 13-16-00175-CV and
13-16-00176-CV. We affirm the trial court's order in
appellate cause number 13-16-00175-CV, and we reverse and
remand in appellate cause number
2010, appellant sued appellee alleging that he adversely
possessed certain property located in Rosharon, Texas
(hereinafter, the Rosharon address). The trial court
dismissed the lawsuit for want of prosecution after the case
had remained on the court's docket for over three years
with almost no activity. Appellant filed a motion to
reinstate the lawsuit, which the trial court denied.
Appellant then appealed the trial court's decision to the
Fourteenth Court of Appeals, but the appeal was unsuccessful.
See Henderson v. Blalock, 465 S.W.3d 318, 321-24
(Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (affirming the
trial court's orders dismissing appellant's lawsuit
for want of prosecution and denying his motion to reinstate).
2014, appellant: (1) refiled the original lawsuit; and (2)
filed a bill of review seeking to reinstate the original
lawsuit that had been dismissed for want of prosecution.
Appellant, now proceeding pro se, filed a notice of
appearance in which he identified an address in Houston as
his residence and mailing address (hereinafter, the Houston
also proceeding pro se, filed separate motions for summary
judgment seeking to dismiss the refiled lawsuit and the bill
of review, respectively. Appellee certified to the trial
court in each motion that the motion was served on appellant
"via certified mail, return receipt requested" to
the Rosharon address.
did not file a response to appellee's motions.
Thereafter, the trial court granted both motions and ordered
that appellant take nothing on his claims in the refiled
lawsuit and the bill of review. Appellant filed timely notices of
appeal, and these appeals followed.
Order Dismissing the Refiled Lawsuit-Appellate Cause
first issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred in
dismissing the refiled lawsuit because he never received
notice that appellee had filed the motion for summary
notice to the non-movant of the summary judgment hearing is a
prerequisite to summary judgment." Rozsa v.
Jenkinson, 754 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex. App.-San Antonio
1988, no writ) (citing Gulf Refining Co. v. A.F.G.
Management 34 Ltd., 605 S.W.2d 346, 349 (Tex. Civ.
App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.)). The
right to summary judgment exists only in compliance with the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. The summary
judgment movant must comply with all the requirements for
proper service before being entitled to summary judgment.
Id. (citing Tobin v. Garcia, 159 Tex. 58,
316 S.W.2d 396, 400 (1958)). Because summary judgment is a
harsh remedy, a reviewing court ...