Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
JOSE GUADALUPE HINOJOSA AND SANDRA SALINAS HINOJOSA, Appellants,
DANIEL SANDOVAL AND ABIGAIL SANDOVAL, Appellees.
appeal from the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County,
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
M. BENAVIDES, JUSTICE
issues, appellants Jose and Sandra Hinojosa appeal from a
no-evidence summary judgment in favor of appellees Daniel and
Abigail Sandoval. Appellees respond that appellants'
appeal is frivolous and ask this Court to issue sanctions. We
find it to be a frivolous appeal and affirm.
1988, appellants and appellees entered into a contract to
purchase real estate. Appellees agreed to pay appellants $64,
000 to purchase a home, with $56, 000 to be owner-financed by
appellants over thirty years. The calculated mortgage payment
did not include property taxes.
November 2011, the appellants filed suit alleging "the
Plaintiff's have fully paid for the property and all
conditions precedent to the Plaintiff's performance of
the contract have been completed and Defendants refuses to
convey the land to Plaintiff's as promised." The
appellants requested a declaratory judgment to
"establish rights under the contract."
filed an answer and special exception stating that under the
contract, appellants were required to make mortgage payments
through August 2018, but appellants had made no payments
since 2003. Appellees also protested that the appellants did
not plead any elements necessary to support their causes of
action for breach of contract or declaratory relief. The
appellees also filed a counter-petition and later a motion
for a no-evidence summary judgment. Following a short
hearing, the trial court granted appellees' motion for
summary judgment. This appeal followed.
Appeal is Frivolous
they present as five issues, appellants ask the following: 1)
why did the appellees not fix mold damage in the home; 2) why
did the appellees not pay property taxes on the rental
property that appellants were renting from them; 3) why were
the appellants led to believe that $61, 000 given by the
insurance company for mold would be credited to mortgage
payments; 4) why did one of the appellants have to die based
on living conditions in the home; and 5) there was a breach
of contract when the appellees failed to fix the mold by law.
Applicable Law and Discussion
issues raised by appellants on appeal have no relation to
their motion for declaratory judgment filed in the trial
court. In the trial court, appellants attached the following
exhibit to their petition: an earnest money contract relating
to the sale of a home at 1605 John Avenue in Edinburg, Texas
between appellants and appellees. According to the contract,
appellants were identified as the buyers and were responsible
for the monthly mortgage payments in the amount of $491.45
for a term of thirty years. The earnest money contract also
contained a provision that stated the "Deed of Trust to
be executed by Buyer shall provide for the payment of Buyer
of taxes and insurance premiums on the property."
the appellants' petition referenced an insurance check
for mold damage, evidence relating to the importance of the
document was not presented before the trial court. The
reporter's record submitted to this Court was from a
hearing titled "Motion for Summary Judgment
Proceedings" and was a total of five pages of transcript
testimony. The trial court's order granting the motion
for no-evidence summary judgment stated:
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs and Defendants entered
into a written contract for the sale of property on August
1988. Pursuant to the written terms of the contact [sic],
Defendants agreed to owner-finance the home for a 30-year
term. Plaintiffs were to remit monthly mortgage payments in
the amount of $491.44 beginning September 1988 for 30 years.
Plaintiffs own affidavit states that they stopped paying in
January 2003. Hence, Plaintiffs breached the terms of the
written agreement and are in default in the sum of $46,