APPEAL OF VENUE ISSUE
Generally, a party must wait until a final judgment occurs in order to appeal an erroneous ruling
regarding venue. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.064(b); Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel,
997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999); Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. Pioneer Elecs. (USA) Inc., 68 S.W.3d 254,
257 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). However, when a case involves multiple plaintiffs, wherein
plaintiffs are included by joinder or intervention, section 15.003 establishes a limited right of interlocutory
appeal to contest a trial court’s venue determination. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.003(b)-
(c); Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp., 997 S.W.2d at 601; Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 68 S.W.3d at 257. This
limited right of interlocutory appeal extends only to plaintiffs who are unable to independently establish
proper venue apart from the joinder factors set out in section 15.003(a). Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
Ann. § 15.003(b)-(c); Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 68 S.W.3d at 258.
Section 15.0642 of the civil practice and remedies code provides for mandamus relief to enforce a
mandatory venue provision. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 15.0642 (West 2002); In re Transcon.
Realty Investors, 271 S.W.3d 270, 271 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 218 S.
W.3d 74, 76 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). In cases regarding mandatory venue, the relator is not
required to show the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Mo. Pac. R.R., 998 S.W.2d 212, 215–
16 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding). The only issue presented in such cases is the legal question
regarding whether the trial court properly interpreted the mandatory venue provision. In re Transcon.
Realty Investors, 271 S.W.3d at 271; In re Tex. Ass’n of Sch. Bds., Inc., 169 S.W.3d 653, 656 (Tex.
2005) (orig. proceeding).
VENUE IN SAPCR CASE
In a suit to modify the parent-child relationship, the trial court has a mandatory ministerial duty under
Family Code section 155.201 to transfer the suit to a county where the child has lived for six months or
longer. See In re Kramer, 9 S.W.3d 449, 450 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, orig. proceeding) (citing
Proffer v. Yates, 734 S.W.2d 671, 673 (Tex. 1987) (orig. proceeding)). When the trial court fails to
transfer venue, mandamus relief is appropriate because an appeal is inadequate. See Proffer, 734 S.W.
2d at 673.
See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 155.201, 155.204 (West 2008). A transfer becomes mandatory as follows:
If a suit to modify or a motion to enforce an order is filed in the court having continuing, exclusive Id. § 155.201(b). Section 155.203 of the Family Code directs the trial court to look at the child’s “principal
jurisdiction of a suit, on the timely motion of a party the court shall, within the time required by
Section 155.204, transfer the proceeding to another county in this state if the child has resided in
the other county for six months or longer.
residence” to determine the county of the child’s residence when determining if venue must be
transferred. See id. § 155.203 (providing “the court may not require that the period of residence be
continuous or uninterrupted but shall look to the child’s principal residence during the six-month period
preceding the commencement of the suit”).
Texas Supreme Court Venue Case Law - Venue Rulings
In Re Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc. No. 07-0608 (Tex. Nov. 14, 2008)
(venue mandamus in condemnation suit, motion to transfer venue)
IN RE TRANSCONTINENTAL REALTY INVESTORS, INC.; from Kaufman County; 5th district
(05-07-00726-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-25-07)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion
In re Team Rocket, LP, No. 06-0414 (Tex. May 23, 3008)(Opinion by Justice Paul Green)(mandamus
granted)(mandamus granted to enforce first transfer of venue, nonsuit and refiling in third county
IN RE TEAM ROCKET, L.P., MLF AIRFRAMES, INC., AND MARK L. FREDERICK; from Fort Bend County;
14th district (14-06-00136-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 04-25-06)
stay order issued June 13, 2006, lifted
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court.
Justice Wainwright delivered a concurring opinion, (reiterating reservations about expansion of
mandamus powers) in which Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice O'Neill joined.
Cases from the Courts of Appeals in which Texas Supreme Court Denied
LIGHTHOUSE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, L.P. v. ROBERT J. KILLEEN; from Bexar County; 4th
district (04-06-00780-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 11-14-07, pet. denied April 2008)
(venue challenge, existence ,elements of contract)
Appellant Robert J. Killeen, Jr., a resident of Harris County, and Appellee Lighthouse Electrical
Contractors, L.P. ("Lighthouse"), whose principal place of business is in Travis County, entered into a
contract for electrical work to be performed at Killeen's Travis County residence. A dispute regarding
workmanship and costs ensued. After Killeen refused demands by Lighthouse for payment, the parties
exchanged correspondence, which Lighthouse interpreted as a settlement agreement. Lighthouse
subsequently sued Killeen in Bexar County for breach of settlement agreement. On appeal, Killeen
challenges both the trial court's denial of the motion to transfer venue and the granting of summary
judgment. Because the record contains probative evidence that a substantial part of the events giving
rise to Lighthouse's breach of contract action occurred in Bexar County, we sustain venue in Bexar
County. Killeen v. Lighthouse Electrical Contractors (Tex.App.- Dallas 2007, pet denied)
08-0031 LIGHTHOUSE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, L.P. v. ROBERT J. KILLEEN; from Bexar County;
4th district (04-06-00780-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 11-14-07, pet. denied April 2008) (venue challenge,
existence elements of contract, breach of settlement agreement)
Texas Causes of Action and Defenses | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams | Texas
Caselaw Topics Pages | Texas Opinions Homepage |