Susan Harrington and Kathleen Kilgore v. Magellan Pipeline Company, LP ( 2009 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-07-00372-CV
SUSAN HARRINGTON AND KATHLEEN KILGORE,
Appellants
v.
MAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, LP,
Appellee
From the 13th District Court
Navarro County, Texas
Trial Court No. 07-16699-CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Susan Harrington and Kathleen Kilgore each own an undivided 4% interest in a
100-acre tract of land. Through a series of easements, Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P.
and/or its predecessors installed pipelines on the land. Contesting the validity of
certain easements, Harrington and Kilgore sued Magellan, alleging that installation of
the pipelines constitutes trespass. Magellan, which owns a tank farm on an adjoining
tract, purchased the remaining 92% interest in the 100-acre tract and counterclaimed for
partition. The trial court entered a final judgment partitioning the land and severing
the partition and trespass claims. Raising eight issues, Harrington and Kilgore appeal.
We affirm.
JURISDICTION
A judicial partition involves two appealable orders. Griffin v. Wolfe, 610 S.W.2d
466, 466 (Tex. 1980) (per curiam); Campbell v. Tufts, 3 S.W.3d 256, 258 (Tex. App.—Waco
1999, no pet.). In its first order, the trial court: (1) determines each party’s share or
interest in the land sought to be divided, and all questions of law and equity affecting
title; (2) decides whether the property is “susceptible to partition;” and (3) appoints
commissioners to partition the property “in accordance with the [parties’] respective
shares or interests.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 760, 761; Campbell, 3 S.W.3d at 258-259; Yturria v.
Kimbro, 921 S.W.2d 338, 342 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, no writ). Before entering
this order, the trial court may adjust all equities between the parties and applies the
rules of equity in determining the broad question of how property is to be partitioned.
Campbell, 3 S.W.3d at 259. Thus, proof is made to the factfinder at trial of the existence
and value of improvements to the property at the time of partition and of other
equitable considerations which may warrant awarding a particular portion of the
property to one of the parties. Id. Based on the factfinder’s findings, the trial court
appoints commissioners to make the actual division of the property and instructs them
to take these matters into account in making the partition. Id. By this first order “the
merits of the case are certainly determined and the rights of the parties concluded; nor
should such decree be controlled or revised unless upon appeal or writ of error.” Id.
Harrington v. Magellan Pipeline Co. Page 2
In its second order, the court approves the commissioners’ report and partitions
the property, or if it finds the report “to be erroneous in any material respect, or
unequal and unjust,” the court rejects the report and appoints other commissioners to
partition the land. TEX. R. CIV. P. 771; Campbell, 3 S.W.3d at 259. The only question
which could properly arise on the report of the commissioners would be as to the
conformity of the division with the rules settled by the decree, and as such would arise
upon the acts of the commissioners. Campbell, 3 S.W.3d at 259. Matters decided in the
first hearing cannot be challenged in an appeal from the trial court’s second order
adopting the commissioners’ report and partitioning the property. Id.
In light of these considerations, we must first determine which of Harrington’s
and Kilgore’s eight issues are properly before us in this appeal from the trial court’s
second order. Harrington and Kilgore raise the following issues: (1) the trial court
violated due process by entering its order for partition without awaiting the filing of
their letter brief;1 (2) their due process rights were violated when the clerk failed to send
timely notice of the commissioners’ report; (3) the evidence is legally and factually
insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that “Small, regular tracts of land, such as
the tracts awarded to Kilgore and Harrington by the commissioners, would likely have
a higher per acre value than larger tracts of property, such as the tract awarded to
1
Before entering its order for partition, the trial court conducted a hearing, during which the
parties presented opening arguments, testimony, and documentary evidence. No closing arguments
were heard. The trial court authorized the parties to file letters briefs within a time period to be decided
by the parties. Magellan filed a letter brief and informed the trial court that it anticipated the filing of a
responsive brief within approximately two weeks. Five days later, the trial court entered an order for
partition. Harrington and Kilgore filed a letter brief after this order was entered.
Harrington v. Magellan Pipeline Co. Page 3
Magellan by the commissioners, or property burdened by pipeline easements;”2 (4) the
trial court erred by failing to account for their interests in the pipelines and instruct the
commissioners to award tracts containing a portion of the pipeline equivalent to their
respective interests; (5) the trial court erroneously found that it considered all the
equities; (6) the commissioners’ report is defective, having omitted the estimated value
of each tract; (7) the trial court erred by failing to require Magellan to account for rents
and profits; and (8) the trial court abused its discretion by granting a severance.
Issues one, three, four, five, and seven concern “matters decided in the first
hearing.” Campbell, 3 S.W.3d at 258-59; see Snow v. Donelson, 242 S.W.3d 570, 571, 573
(Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.) (declining to consider whether property division was
unjust); see also Spigener v. Wallis, 80 S.W.3d 174, 178-79 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.)
(declining to consider whether trial court entered an erroneous determination of
ownership or failed to account for cross-claims for back rent and maintenance
expenses); Martin v. Dosohs I, 951 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no
pet.) (declining to consider whether trial court awarded Dosohs a larger tract than it
was entitled to). Because these complaints challenge matters decided in the first
hearing from which Harrington and Kilgore did not appeal, we have no jurisdiction to
address them now. See Spigener, 80 S.W.3d at 179; see also Snow, 242 S.W.3d at 571, 573.
2
Upon request by Harrington and Kilgore, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions
of law.
Harrington v. Magellan Pipeline Co. Page 4
UNTIMELY NOTICE OF COMMISSIONERS’ FINDINGS
In issue two, Harrington and Kilgore contend that their due process rights were
violated when the clerk mailed notice of the commissioners’ report after the time for
filing objections had expired. The commissioners entered findings on August 17, 2007.
The clerk mailed notice of these findings on September 18.
Rule of Civil Procedure 769 requires the clerk to “immediately mail written
notice of the filing of the [commissioners’] report to all parties.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 769.
Either party to the suit may file objections to any report of the commissioners in
partition within thirty days of the date the report is filed. TEX. R. CIV. P. 771.
It is undisputed that the clerk failed to immediately mail notice of the
commissioners’ report. Such failure deprived Harrington and Kilgore of the ability to
file timely objections to the report in accordance with Rule 771. See Green v. Marek, No.
03-01-00502-CV, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 2875, at *2-4 (Tex. App.—Austin April 25, 2002,
no pet.) (not designated for publication) (Green’s due process rights were violated when
he was not given notice of the filing of the commissioners’ report and was not given
thirty days to file objections to the report).
However, when objections are untimely filed, “Rule 5(b) authorizes the trial
court ‘upon motion’ to permit the late filing, if the movant shows good cause for the
failure to act.” Woods v. Woods, 193 S.W.3d 720, 722-23 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2006, pet.
denied). At no time did Harrington and Kilgore raise a due process argument before
the trial court, file any kind of motion explaining why their objections were late, or
otherwise move to establish good cause. Accordingly, this issue is not preserved for
Harrington v. Magellan Pipeline Co. Page 5
appellate review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1; see also In the Interest of L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707,
710-11 (Tex. 2003); Kaufman v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 197 S.W.3d 867, 875 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi 2006, pet. denied).
DEFECTIVE COMMISSIONERS’ REPORT
The sixth of Harrington’s and Kilgore’s issues address the failure of the
commissioners’ report to list the estimated value of the partitioned tracts of land. See
Snow, 242 S.W.3d at 572 (“The only question which could properly arise on the report of
the commissioners would be as to the conformity of the division with the rules settled
by the decree, and as such would arise upon the acts of the commissioners.”). The
record does not indicate that Harrington and Kilgore ever raised this issue in the trial
court. Although they objected that the commissioners allocated “less valuable property
to the Plaintiffs by allocating to them portions of the Property with no pipeline
activity,” they did not object to omission of the estimated value of each share. See
Positive Feed v. Wendt, No. 01-96-00614-CV, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 774, at *4, 15-16 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 5, 1999, pet. denied) (not designated for publication)
(party objected that commissioners’ failure to “list[] a value for the portions awarded
made it unclear whether each party actually received its interest in the property;”
omission was subject to a harmless error analysis). Harrington and Kilgore have failed
to preserve their sixth issue for appellate review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1.
SEVERANCE
In their eighth issue, Harrington and Kilgore challenge the trial court’s decision
to grant a severance of the partition and trespass claims. However, because Harrington
Harrington v. Magellan Pipeline Co. Page 6
and Kilgore failed to object to the severance in the trial court, this issue is not preserved
for appellate review. See Mulvey v. Mobil Producing Tex. & N.M., Inc., 147 S.W.3d
594, 608-09 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2004, pet. denied); see also Dixon Fin. Servs. v.
Greenberg, Peden, Siegmyer & Oshman, P.C., No. 01-06-00696-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS
2064, at *35 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 20, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.);
Guerra v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 940 S.W.2d 295, 299 (Tex. App.—
San Antonio 1997, no pet.).
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
FELIPE REYNA
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed April 29, 2009
[CV06]
Harrington v. Magellan Pipeline Co. Page 7