Khampheth Bounkhoun v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 297th District Court of Tarrant County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 7th District Court of Appeals » 2007 » Khampheth Bounkhoun v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 297th District Court of Tarrant County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 07-07-00129-CR

Case Date: 11/05/2007

Plaintiff: RON SUPRISE AND MARIA ESTELA SUPRISE

Defendant: JIM DEKOCK, JR. AND PAT EDWARDS--Appeal from 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County

Preview:RON SUPRISE AND MARIA ESTELA SUPRISE v.
JIM DEKOCK, JR. AND PAT EDWARDS--Appeal
from 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County
NUMBER 13-00-640-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
RON SUPRISE AND
MARIA ESTELA SUPRISE, Appellants,
v.
JIM DEKOCK, JR. AND
PAT EDWARDS, Appellees.
On appeal from the 332nd District Court
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
O P I N I O N
Before Justices Dorsey, Ya ez, and Chavez[1]
Opinion by Justice Dorsey
This summary judgment case involves a suit by Ron and Maria Suprise for damages resulting from an alleged tortious
interference with the use and enjoyment of their land by appellees, Jim DeKock, Jr., and Pat Edwards. Appellees
obtained a summary judgment denying recovery because tortious interference with the use and enjoyment of land is
not a recognized cause of action in Texas. The issue is whether a cause of action exists in Texas for tortious
interference with the use and enjoyment of land. We reverse and remand.
I. Allegations and Procedural History
The Suprises bought a tract of land for hunting, investment, and for their children. They sued appellees, adjoining land
owners, alleging[2] that they tortiously interfered with their peaceful use, enjoyment, and benefit of their property by:
(1) interfering with the placement of deer blinds; (2) intentionally scaring the game; (3) making personal threats to
persons hunting on the property; and (4) using racial epithets. They alleged appellees= conduct was racially motivated,
because they made statements that they did not want any AMexicans@ hunting on the property. Appellees threatened
Mr. Suprise by telling him they were going to Agame fence him out,@ which would render the land worthless for
hunting, and by telling him they were going to ruin his name and make him Aeat@ his investment. This conduct
caused the Suprises to sell their land to escape the harassment and to avoid losing their investment. Appellees
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PSDs2/12238.html[8/20/2013 9:22:25 PM]

interfered with the Suprises=s efforts to sell the property, by posting signs and calling prospective buyers. Appellees=s
conduct, therefore, was the proximate cause of damages to the Suprises, because they had intended to keep the
property for a long-term investment and for the use and benefit of their children, but were Aforced@ to sell the
property at less than fair-market value.
Appellees filed separate motions for summary judgment, claiming that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of
law because tortious interference with the use and enjoyment of one=s land is not a recognized cause of action in
Texas. The Suprises responded that the trial court should deny the motions because appellees were incorrect in their
assertion that Texas does not recognize this cause of action.
The trial court granted appellees=s motions for summary judgment by order dated June 27, 2000. The Suprises appeal
from that order.
II. Standard of Review
The standards for reviewing a summary judgment motion are well established: (1) the movant has the burden of
showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; (2) in
deciding whether a disputed material fact issue exists precluding summary judgment, we take as true evidence
favorable to the nonmovant; and (3) indulge every reasonable inference in the nonmovant=s favor and resolve any
doubts in its favor. Nixon v. Mr. Property Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 49 (Tex. 1985). We must liberally
construe the pleadings in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. Snow v. Milner, 364 S.W.2d
726, 727 (Tex. Civ. App.BHouston 1962, ref=d n.r.e.).
A trial court should grant a defendant's motion for summary judgment if it disproves at least one essential element of
each of the plaintiff's causes of action. American Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 425 (Tex. 1997); Rosas v.
Buddies Food Store, 518 S.W.2d 534, 537 (Tex. 1975). A court may also grant summary judgment if an amended
pleading fails to state a cause of action. Friesenhahn v. Ryan, 960 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1998); Texas Dep=t of
Corrections v. Herring, 513 S.W.2d 6, 10 (Tex. 1974).
II. Analysis
A. The Tort Of Interference
The first issue is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis that tortious interference with
property rights is not a viable cause of action in Texas. Appellees=s contention is that this is a private-nuisance
case.[3] We disagree.
Texas law is well settled that "[a]ny intentional invasion of, or interference with, property, property rights, personal
rights or personal liberties causing injury without just cause or excuse is an actionable tort." King v. Acker, 725
S.W.2d 750, 754 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ) (citing Cooper v. Steen, 318 S.W.2d 750, 757 (Tex.
Civ. App.BDallas 1958, no writ)); see also Cole v. Hall, 864 S.W.2d 563, 571 (Tex. App.BDallas 1993, writ dism=d
w.o.j.); International Union United Auto. Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 813
S.W.2d 558, 567 (Tex. App.BDallas 1991, writ denied).
Under the general rule stated in King the Suprises claim there are at least two causes of action for which they may seek
relief: (1) tortious interference with the right to dispose of property; and (2) tortious interference with the peaceful use
and enjoyment of property rights. We will discuss each cause of action separately.
1. Right To Dispose Of Property
The Suprises=s claim for tortious interference with the right to dispose of their property is, in essence, a claim for
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PSDs2/12238.html[8/20/2013 9:22:25 PM]

tortious interference with a prospective contract or prospective business relation. Texas law protects prospective
contracts from interference. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sturges, 52 S.W.3d 711, 713 (Tex. 2000); Cooper, 318 S.W.2d at
757. And, our courts have recognized a cause of action for tortious interference with prospective business relations.
Sturges, 52 S.W.2d at 723 (citing Juliette Fowler Homes, Inc. v. Welch Assocs., Inc., 793 S.W.2d 660, 665 (Tex.
1990); Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 689 (Tex. 1989)); Cooper, 318 S.W.2d at 757.
In Cooper v. Steen, 318 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. Civ. App.BDallas 1958, no writ), Steen sold real property to Walker, who,
in turn, sold it to Cooper. Afterwards Walker assigned the note to Steen. Cooper could not afford to pay Steen for the
property and tried to sell it. She was unsuccessful, however, due to Steen=s alleged interference. Cooper sued Steen
and Walker, alleging that they had Aconstantly intimidated, harassed, and obstructed her efforts to sell her property
and said sales have been lost, prevented and interfered with by said defendant Helen M. Steen talking with prospective
buyers and discouraging them from buying; . . . .@ Cooper=s evidence showed that a prospective buyer, Mrs. Rector,
called Steen, who discouraged any transaction with Cooper stating that Cooper was Acrazy.@ Rector refused to buy
the property for that reason. The trial court granted the defendants= motion for instructed verdict. The Cooper court
stated that the testimony reflected:
the elements of a wrongful interference by Mrs. Steen concerning the sale by plaintiff [Cooper] of her own property. . .
. Certain statements of Mrs. Rector may be seen as inconsistent or conflicting; yet this witness testified in effect that
she would have then given $11,000 for the property but was dissuaded by the derogatory attitude and representations
of Mrs. Steen. . .
Obviously a financial loss has resulted to plaintiff in a failure to dispose of her property at $11,000; and appellees may
argue damage without injury has resulted to Mrs. Cooper in that there was no contract with the prospective buyer (Mrs.
Rector) to be interfered with. 'It must appear, in order that the conduct may be tortious, that damage has been
occasioned thereby; but it need not be absolutely certain that the prospective contract would have been made were it
not for such interference; A reasonable assurance thereof, in view of all the circumstances, is sufficient'.
Id. at 757 (footnote and citations omitted). The court concluded that a prima facie case was made for tortious
interference by Steen in Cooper's lawful right to dispose of her own property. Id.
Here, construing the pleadings liberally, the Suprises have alleged that appellees interfered with their efforts to sell the
property, Aby posting signs and calling prospective buyers.@ The Suprises did not allege what the signs stated or
what appellees told the prospective buyers; however, we can discern from the context of the allegations that
appellees=s conduct was detrimental to their efforts to sell the property, because they had intended to keep the
property for long-term investment and for the use and benefit of their children, but were forced to quickly sell the
property at less than fair-market value. The law does not require absolute certainty that a prospective contract would
have been made were it not for the interference; it must reasonably appear so, in view of all of the circumstances.
Exxon Corp. v. Allsup, 808 S.W.2d 648, 659 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 1991, writ denied); Cooper, 318 S.W.2d at
757.
It is clear to us that the Suprises=s amended petition refer to interference by appellees with prospective contractual and
business relationships between the Suprises and those persons who desired to buy their property. See Cooper, 318
S.W.2d at 757. The Suprises did not have to specifically use the terms Aprospective contract@ or "business
relationship" in their pleadings so long as the wording of the petition made apparent the gist of the complaint.
Champion v Wright, 740 S.W.2d 848, 853 (Tex. App.BSan Antonio 1987, writ denied). See Cooper, 318 S.W.3d at
757. We hold that the Suprises alleged a prima facie cause of action for tortious interference with prospective contract
or business relationship. See Cooper, 318 S.W.2d at 757.
2. Interference With Property Rights
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PSDs2/12238.html[8/20/2013 9:22:25 PM]

The Suprises=s cause of action for tortious interference with enjoyment and use of property is, in essence, a claim for
intentional invasion of, or interference with, property rights. In Waggoner v. Wyatt, 94 S.W. 1076 (Tex. Civ. App.
1906, writ ref=d), Wyatt sued Waggoner for Athe wrongful and oppressive conduct of Waggoner and Bedford in
preventing Wyatt from using two sections of land owned by him situated in a large pasture belonging to Waggoner and
under the control of Bedford as his ranch boss.@ Id. at 1076. The facts showed that Waggoner and Bedford kept
Wyatt from using the land for grazing purposes. The Waggoner court stated that the facts warranted the trial court in
instructing the jury that:
appellants [Waggoner and Bedford] were liable for actual damages, for, while Waggoner through Bedford offered to
lease or purchase from Wyatt his two sections of land, and that, too, at a price seemingly in excess of their value, it is
nevertheless undeniably true that they denied him the right to make such use of them as his ownership clearly entitled
him to. . .
Id. at 1077-78. The court said that AThere was evidence of a persistent and predetermined effort on the part of
appellants to prevent Wyatt from enjoying the use and benefit of his property in his own way, although they conceded
his right to the property. . . .@ Id.
Here appellees denied the Suprises the right to use their land for hunting and investment purposes by: (1) interfering
with the Suprises=s placement of deer blinds; (2) intentionally scaring the game; (3) making personal threats to persons
hunting on the property; (4) using racial epithets; and (5) threatening Mr. Suprise by telling him they were going to
Agame fence him out,@ which would render the land worthless for hunting, and by telling him they were going to ruin
his name and Aeat@ his investment. Appellees= conduct compelled the Suprises to sell the property in order to escape
the harassment and to avoid losing their investment in the property.
We hold that the Suprises=s petition sufficiently alleged a prima facie cause of action for intentionally invasion or
interference with their property rights. See King, 725 S.W.2d at 754 ([a]ny intentional invasion of, or interference
with, property, property rights . . . causing injury without just cause or excuse is an actionable tort."); Waggoner, 94
S.W. at 1076-78. We hold that the trial court erred in granting appellees=s motions for summary judgment. We express
no opinion about whether the Suprises can prove their causes of action; we only conclude that they have sufficiently
alleged causes of action under Texas law. We sustain issue one.
B. Special Exceptions
The second issue is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment before ruling on the special exception
and without allowing the Suprises an opportunity to amend their pleadings. Due to our disposition of issue one we
need not address this issue. Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
We REVERSE the judgment and REMAND the case for trial.
J. BONNER DORSEY,
Justice
Publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).
Opinion delivered and filed
this 22nd day of August, 2002.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PSDs2/12238.html[8/20/2013 9:22:25 PM]

[1]Retired Justice Melchor Chavez assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant
to Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 74.003 (Vernon 1998).
[2]These allegations are taken from the Suprises=s First Amended Original Petition. In addition to alleging a cause of
action for tortious interference with their property rights, they also alleged, in the alternative, causes of action for
nuisance and negligence. However the Suprises nonsuited the nuisance and negligence claims.
[3]A private nuisance is a condition that substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of land by causing
unreasonable discomfort or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities attempting to use and enjoy it. See Wickham
II v. San Jacinto River Auth., 979 S.W.2d 876, 880 (Tex. App.BBeaumont 1998, no pet.).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PSDs2/12238.html[8/20/2013 9:22:25 PM]

Download 12238.pdf