ACCEPTED 04-14-00667-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 8/7/2015 10:53:20 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK NO. 04-14-00667-CV FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS IN THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS 08/7/2015 10:53:20 AM At SAN ANTONIO. TEXAS KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk

RAMIRO & EDNA RAMOS AND FEDERICO SALAZAR. JR. APPELLANTS v. THE UNKNOWN HEIRS OF TOMASA GONZ ALF,ZAND NARCISO GONZALEZ APPELLEES

APPELLANTS'REPLY BRIEF

On appealfrom CauseNo. DC-09-559;381'tJudicial District Court of Starr Counfy, Texas

KeirhP. Miller StateBarNo. 14093725 MeganH. Kucera StateBarNo.24076449 LAW OFFICESOF KEITH P. MILLER.P.C.

14350Northbrook, Suire150 SanAntonio,Texas78232 Telephone:(210) 524-9040 Telecopier:(210)267-2982 ATTORNEYSFORAPPELLANTS

ORAL ARGUMENTREQUESTED IDENTITY OF TRIAL JUDGE.AAW

Parties to Pr lceeding Couqsel J. ManuelBalales Trial, udge Ramiro& Ed ra Ramosand KeithP. Miller FedericoSalazar,Jr. MeganH. Kucera Appelants Law Officesof KeithP. Miller, P.C.

14350Northbrook,Suite150 SanAntonio,Texas78232 Telephone:(210) 524-9040 Telecopier:(210)267-2982 TheUnknow Heits of NarcisoGonzalez OrlandoRodriguez Appel ees 6l I W. Main Street Rio GrandeCity, Texas78582 Telephone:(956) 488-0772 Telecppier:(956)488-8920 The Unknow: Heirsof TomasaGorualez Minefva Garza Appel ?ES 200E. 2ndStreet Rio GrandeCity, Texas78582 Telephone:(956)487-7 l3l Telecppier:(956)487-8806 Alicia O. Rartos JohnA. Pope,III Alicia R. Saliras Atlas & Hall Alma Gonzal:z Hoin 200N. Britton Avenue AlvanGutienez Rio QrandeCity, Texas78582 CarmenSala:4r G&rza Teleflrone:(956)488-1896 DaliaNoraB Ranlirez Telecopier:(956) 488-6482 DeliaNormal. Valadez DianaN.B.Iv edina DoraN. Bustrmanlte EddieGuzma EddieVasqurz Villa Elia G. Garza Fiacro Salaza', Jr. Fidel Salazar Gloria ot HomeroHect>rGonzalez JavierJ. Gon:alez JoseEmilio( onzalez,Jr. JuanGutierre JuanManuel iarciia JuanRamonI ionzalez LauraGonzal:z Guerrera MariaDel Ca men Salazar MariaElia Gr nzalqzGarza MariaEmma l. Ramirez Mario Cesar( ionzalez OmarGarcia PabloIdefons> Gonzalez SergioL. Bus;amante VeronicaMartinez Armando Vil arreal,Jr. DanielJ. G ia Elva Gonzalea 100E. 5thStreet NanetteRom I Rio GrandeCity, Texas78582 Noel Villarre I I Telepfrone:(956)488-8I 70 Vilda Daniel Telecopier:(956)488-8129 Vilma Bilv Alicia S. Lyo N J.M. "Chuey" Alvarez Antonio Eliz<ndo AlvarezLaw Firm CarmenSalazar Sicroff 501N. BrittonAvenue GracielaR. S rldania Rio GrandeCity, Texas78582 Homero Garc a Telephone:(956)487-4871 Irma Elizondr,Garcia (956)487-7521 Telecopier: JoseVenancirr Elizondo Maria A. Ben lvides Maria F. Glaslr Norma Garcii Olga GuerrerrI Rodolfo Caneles,Jr. RoqueV. Me tdez SantosGarcia, Jr' Yolanda Garcia AdalbertoVil Iarreal Pro Se Adan Ramos,Jr. Aissa Lynette Salazar Alberto Villa real Amelia Salazr Yunez Arabela Gonzalez Arlene Luccete Salazar BelindaGarc:a* (Villaneal-Garza) Cindy Ramos-Ramos Dora Lisa Salzar Guerrero Efraim Villar 'eal Efrain Ramos-R os Erica GuzmarLUribe GerardoSala ',ar Gilda Ramos GracielaRarnos-Guena Hayde Correr Irma Salazar lisneros JavierSalinas Maria Elena' /illarreal-Vasquez Maria Eliva ( rdtZO.

Maria Elsa G fiiercez Maria Emma Bustamante Maria Esther Gonzalez Maria Eva Rzmos-Garcia MelissaSalazar Longoria Roberto(BoLby) Salazar RolandoL. V illarreal Rosa Enna G tnzalez SandraBecker SandraVillar :eal-Smith

lll SergioL. Bustarnante, Jr. Socorro Gonzal<:z SylviaRamos VeronicaSalazarRiivera

1V TABLE OF'CONTENTS IDENTITYgF TRIAL JUDGE,PARTIES,AND COUNSEL .............i TABLEOF INDEXOF ARGU TO APPELEES' RESPONSE TO ISSUENO. I ........I REP TO APPELEES' RESPONSE TO ISSUENO. 2 ,......,2 REP TO APPELEES' RESPONSE TO ISSUENOS.3 &4......... .........3 PRAYER CERTIFICA CERTIFICA Tex.R.Civ. Tex. R. Civ.

STATUTES TexasPro Code$ 29.002(Vernon2014) .................3.4

CASES Walker v. P , 827S.W.2d833.840 ( T e x .1 9 9 2 ).. . . ' . . . . , 1 ) L r -

Schluterv. Sel, 194s.w.2d125 (Tex.Civ.A Hill v. Jarvis, wL257r753 (Tex. App. - Wheelerv. P illips,20ll WL 4011455, II (Tex. App. - ustin2011,pet.denied) .............

I Bailey- v. Mason,334 S.W.3d39,45 (Tex.App.- Prize Energt esources, L.P. v. Cliff Hoskins,Inc.,345S.W.3d537 (Tex.App.- Antonio2011,no pet.) ..........I Cassov. Full ton, 2006WL 2612600.3 (Tex.App.- Hill v. Jarvis, wL257r753 (Tex.App.- Wheelerv. P l l i p s,2 0 IlWL 4 0 1 1 4 55, II (Tex. App. - u s t i n2 0 1 1 ,p e t .d e n i e d ) ..............2 Prize Energ,, ces,L.P.v. Cliff Hoskins, lnc.,345S.W.3d537 (Tex. App. - Antonio2011,no pet.)..... .......2

VI Orix Capital Murke'ts,LLC tt.La Villit,t ,\,lotorInns, J.V., 32g S.W.3cl30,44 (Tex.App. - SanAntonio 2010,pet. denied)

vii ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES REPLY TO APPELLEES' RESPONSETO ISSUE NO. 1: Appelleesappearto misapprehendthe nature of Appellants' arguments. Appellants are not making a sufficiency of the evidencechallenge,as the factual findings in this casewere in Appellants' fal'or. The trial court specificcttLy .fourul that Appellarlts "were the only heirs of Tomasaand Narciso Gonzalezwho expendedfunds for the preservationof the land in question afterthe deathsof the Gonzalez'sin 1983"and "paid more than$8 I ,873.82for ad valoremtaxes, maintenance, and the preservationof the propertyfor over 3l years.'"(C.R. 634-638). However, despitethesefaLctualfindings by the trial court, Appellants' claim fbr equitablereimbursemenr wasdenieddue to the trial court's misapprehension or misapplicationof the law.

It is the misapplicationof the law which amountsto an abuseof discretionanclwhich Appellantsnow appeal. See Walkerv. Packer,827 S.W.2d833, 84Cr(Tex. 1992). Accordingly, in accordance vrith TexasRule of AppellantProcedure38, Appellantsadequatelybriefedthe law which they allegewas misappliedand clearlyset forth their argume.nt for reversal.(Appellants' Brief at 9-ll). There is no needfor Appellantsto put forth more e'vidence"of when they had [paid]" or "clear and convincingevidence"as arguedby Appelleesr. (Appellees'Brief at7-9).

The trial court's finding that Appellants"paid more than $81,873.82for ad valorem taxes, maintenance,and the preservationof the [common] property" entitl: Appellants,as a matter of law, to an equitablelien to enforcerepaymentof this sum from thei,rcotenants.(C.R. 636, Pl.'s Ex. 3-23);seeSlchluterv. Sell, 194 S.W.2d125 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1946,no writ); seealso Hill v. Jarvis, 1}00tlWL 2571753(Tex. App. - Tyler 2008, pet. dr:nied);see also LVheeler v. P h i l l i p s , 2 0 l l W L 4 0 1 1 4 5 5 , 1 1 ( T e xA.p p . - A u s t i n 2 0 l l , p e t . d e n i e d ) ; s eee. g .B a i l e y l r l a s o n v .

Mason,334S.W.3d39,45 (Tex. App. - Dallas2008,pet. denied);Prize EnergyResources, L.P. v. cliff Hoskin.s,Inc., 345 s.w.3d 537 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 2011,no pet.). The trial court's denial of Appellants' claim for an equitablelien was a clear a.buseof discretionand must be reversedon appeal. Walkerv. Packer,827S.W.2d833, 840 (Tex. 1992)(holdinga trial court hasno discretionto determinewhat the law is or in applyingthe law to the facts).

REPLY TO AITP-ELLEES'RESPONSETO ISSUE NO. 2: Again, l\ppellees have failed to grasp the nature of Appellatrts' arguments. While it is true that Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure33 requiresa party to object in order to preserve error,Appellantsare not complainingof the trial court's admissionor failure to admit a pieceof evidence. Appellantscomplain of the court's inteqpretation of Te;rasPropertyCode $ 29 as being the exclu:siveproceduralmechanismfor recor,'eringsums owed for ad valorem taxesby a cotenantand the court's failure to recognizerecent opinions from the various courts of appeal recognizing and affirming the equitable cause of action for reimb,ursementby a cotenanr,a remedy separatefrom that afforded by Chapter29. Casso v. Fullerton, 2006 WL 2612600,3 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 2006, pet. denied);Hill v. Jarvis, 2008 WL 2511753(Tex. App. - Tyler 2008,pet.denied);Wheelerv. Phillips,20lI WL 4011455,11(Tex. App. - Austin 2011, pet. denied);seee.g.Bailey Masonv. Mason,334 S.W.3d39,45 (Tex. App. - Dallas2008,pet.

L.P. v. Clilf Hoskins,Inc., 345 S.\l/.3d 537 (Tex. App. - San denied);Prize linergy Resources, Antcrnio2011, no pet.). It is well establishedthat a trial courl has no discretionto determine wha1. the law is or in applyingthe law to the facts. Walkerv. Packer,827S.W.2d833, 840 (Tex. 1992). Misapplicationof the law, as we have here, is by definition an abuseof discretionand is subjectto reversal. Orix Capital Markets,LLC v. Lu Villita Motor Inns, J.V., 329 S.W.3d 30,44 (Tex. App. - San A.ntonio2010, pet. denied)(a trial court abusesits discretionand is subjectto reversalwhen it actswithout referenceto guidingrulesor principles of law or misappliesthe law).

REPLY TO A TO Appellantsdid not rely on Chapter29 ofthe TexasProperly Code and any findinlgby the trial court to threcontrary, is simply not supportedby the record.

Appellants can only assume that the "support" referred to by the trial court in its final judgment was Appellants, a'gument that the may languagein $ 29.002(a) of the Texas Properly code clearly indicates that the provision was not intended to be mandatoryor exclusive and did not usurp the comrrLonlaw causeof action relied on by the Appellants.Tex. Prop. Code 29.002(a) $ (Vernon Z0l4). It is undeniablethat Appellantsfervently arguedat trial, and on appeal,that Chapte 'Iexas r 29 ofthe PropertyCode'wasjust one of severalmeansto obtainreimbursement. (V RR. 30-32;C.R,291- 308)' A cursonrreview of Appellants'pleadingsand the trial transcriptclearlyindicate t:his.Id. Becauseof the sheernumber of potentialheirs ol Tomasaand Narciso Gonzalezprecluded Appellantsfrom complying with Chapter29, Appellantsrelied on the common law ciiuseof actionof equitablereimbursement only.

Furthernlore,Appelleesarguethat Appellantsfailed to avail themselvesto the remedy of citationby publicationunderTexasRule of Civil Procedure116 & ll7. Tex. R. Civ. p. 116 & 117. However,Appelleesare mistaken. The unknownheirs of Tornasaand NarcisoG<'tnzalez werein fact citedby publication.(C.R. 5-16). Any errorin the citationin this matterwas'waived by the subsequentappearances o1'theparties,including the appearances of the two attorrreysad litem appointed to representthe unknown heirs. The trial court's finding that Chapter 29 controlledthe clispositionof this matter is far from "academic"as urged by the Apeellees. (Appellees' Brief at 17). Furthermore,citation by publication of the unknown heirs does not that it was impossiblefor Appellantsto comply with severalof the specific Section29.002(b)tor that the trial court misappliedthe law to the facts.Tex. Prop.Codeg .002(b)(Vernon2014).

PRAYEB, Appel ts praythe court will reversethejudgmentof the trial courtandrenderjudgment in Appellantsfavor. Appellantspray that all costsof this appealwill be taxed againstAppellees.

Appellants y for general

I exas Code$ 29.002(b)statesasfollows: (b) The petition contain: (l) a descriptionofthe property; (2) the name ofeach known owner ofthe propefty; (3) the interest held by each known owner ofthe property; (4) the total amount paid by the petitioner for the defendant'sshareof ad valorem taxes imposed on the property; and (5) if applicable, the amount paid by the defendantto the petitioner to reimburse the petitioner for paying the defendant'sshareof ad valorem taxes imposed on the property. Tex. Prop. Code $ 29.002(b) (Vernon 20 I 4).

I hereby certify that this brief conforms to Rule 9.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE

certify by my signature below that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has beenserved ified Mail ReturnReceiptRequested E I ClassMail X T ecopler ivery John . Olson Law ffice of John A. Olson 2063 Creek River San io, Texas78259 T No.(210)8s8-6780 Rodriguez l l . Main Street Rio City,Texas78582 Telt er No. (956)488-8920 Mi Garza 200E 2ndStreet Rio City,Texas78582 T No.(9s6)487-8806 John . Pope,III Atlas Hall 200N Britton Avenue Rio G City,Texas78582 Tel ier No. (956)488-6452 Dan J. Garcia 0 0E. 5thStreet Rio City,Texas78582 T er No. (956)488-8129 the day of August,2015.