Rosales v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co.
905 S.W.2d 745, 1995 WL 496971, 1995 Tex. App. LEXIS 2275 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant challenges a plaintiff's choice of venue, the plaintiff need only present prima facie proof that the chosen county is a proper venue. Once such proof is offered, the trial court must deny the transfer of venue unless the defendant presents conclusive evidence to the contrary; conflicting evidence is insufficient to defeat the plaintiff's choice.
Facts:
- Rolando Rosales was born and raised in Maverick County, Texas, attending primary and secondary schools there.
- In 1981, Rosales inherited a share of his family home in Maverick County and continued to help pay the bills associated with the property.
- Rosales maintained several official ties to Maverick County; his voter registration, driver's license, and social security card all listed his Maverick County address.
- Due to high unemployment in Maverick County, Rosales obtained employment with H.E. Butt Grocery Company and worked in Bexar County.
- Rosales consistently considered the Maverick County house his permanent residence, occupied it for substantial periods, and always intended to return there permanently.
- An incident occurred involving Rosales, Esmeralda Cruz, H.E. Butt Grocery Company, Harvey Mabry, and Eva Wallace that gave rise to legal claims.
- Esmeralda Cruz joined Rosales's lawsuit against the appellees after it was initially filed.
Procedural Posture:
- Rolando Rosales and Esmeralda Cruz (Appellants) sued H.E. Butt Grocery Company, Harvey Mabry, and Eva Wallace (Appellees) in the District Court of Maverick County, Texas (trial court).
- Appellees filed a motion to transfer venue to Bexar County, arguing Maverick County was not a proper venue.
- The Maverick County trial court granted the Appellees' motion and transferred the case to Bexar County.
- In the Bexar County District Court, Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment against the Appellants.
- The Bexar County trial court granted a final summary judgment in favor of the Appellees, disposing of all claims and parties.
- Appellants appealed the summary judgment to the Court of Appeals, with the dispositive issue being the trial court's initial decision to transfer venue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err in transferring venue when the plaintiff has provided prima facie proof of residence in their chosen county, even if the defendant presents conflicting evidence suggesting residence elsewhere?
Opinions:
Majority - Chapa, Chief Justice
Yes. A trial court errs by transferring venue when a plaintiff provides prima facie proof that their chosen county is a proper venue, as conflicting evidence from the defendant is insufficient to overcome this proof. Under Texas venue rules, the plaintiff has the first choice of venue. If a defendant challenges that choice, the plaintiff must provide 'prima facie proof'—the minimum quantum of evidence necessary to support a rational inference—that the venue is proper. Rosales met this burden by providing sworn evidence of his lifelong ties to Maverick County, including property ownership, voter registration, driver's license, and his stated intent to return. The court noted that for venue purposes, a person can have a residence in more than one county. The defendants' conflicting evidence suggesting Rosales resided in Bexar County only created a fact question, which is not the trial court's role to resolve in a venue hearing. Because Rosales provided prima facie proof, which was not conclusively disproven, Maverick County was a proper venue as a matter of law. Therefore, the trial court's decision to transfer the case was a reversible error.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the plaintiff-friendly nature of the Texas venue statute, giving substantial deference to the plaintiff's initial choice of forum. It clarifies that a trial court's role in a venue hearing is not to weigh conflicting evidence or assess witness credibility, but only to determine if the plaintiff has met the low threshold of presenting prima facie proof. This ruling establishes a high bar for defendants seeking a change of venue, requiring them to produce evidence that 'conclusively destroys' the plaintiff's venue facts, rather than merely creating a factual dispute. The case solidifies the principle that if a plaintiff's chosen venue is proper, no other county can be considered a proper venue, thus limiting defendants' ability to forum shop.
