Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
appeal from the 135th District Court of Calhoun County,
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa
ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice
Shakeria Clark appeals the trial court's judgment in
favor of appellees Mauricio P. Blanco and Veronica R.
Arrellano. By two issues, appellant contends that there is
more than a scintilla of evidence that appellees were not
bona fide purchasers and that appellees should have
intervened in a prior suit. We affirm.
entered into an earnest money contract to purchase a parcel
of land in Calhoun County, Texas. Subsequently, and without
appellant's knowledge, the seller of the land sold the
property to appellees. Appellant sued the seller in a
separate suit. Appellee prevailed in her claims against the
seller, but appellant did not include appellees in that suit.
After notifying appellees of her judgment against the seller,
appellant sued appellees for tortious interference with an
existing contract, assisting or encouraging common law fraud,
and for a declaratory judgment seeking to clear title to the
property and a declaration that appellees were not bona fide
purchasers in good faith.
January 19, 2016, the trial court signed a notice of setting
of a trial on the merits for May 4, 2016. On that date, in a
bench trial, the trial court heard testimony from several
witnesses including, among others, appellant and appellees.
After hearing the evidence, the trial court rendered a
judgment against appellant. This appeal followed.
contends that she is appealing from the trial court's
ruling on appellees' motion for summary judgment, and she
cites the standard of review regarding summary judgments and
focuses her entire first issue on whether she raised a
genuine issue of material fact in her response to
appellees' motion for summary judgment. However, based on
our review of the record, the judgment from which appellant
appeals is not a ruling on a summary judgment. Accordingly, we
need not address appellant's argument that she produced
more than a scintilla of evidence raising a question of fact
regarding whether appellees were bona fide
purchasers. We overrule appellant's first
second issue, appellant contends that "appellees waived
their claim" by failing to intervene in appellant's
lawsuit against the seller. Appellant does not specify which
claim appellees allegedly waived. Presumably, appellant takes
issue with appellees' assertion that they were bona fide
cites, and we find, no case law stating that appellees were
required to intervene in her lawsuit against the seller to
preserve their bona fide purchasers defense. Moreover, in
this cause, appellant requested for the trial court to
determine whether appellees were bona fide purchasers, and
the trial court did so. Specifically, appellant sought
"a declaration that [appellees] were not bona fide
purchasers in good faith." We cannot conclude that the
trial court erred by doing what appellant requested.
Accordingly, we overrule appellant's second issue.