OPINION Appellant Alejandro Hernandez, appearing pro se, appeals from the trial court’s order declaring him a vexatious litigant pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The vexatious litigant declaration arose from a petition for bill of review in which Hernandez challenged a previous adverse judgment in a suit seeking reentry to property located at 5139 Sterling Place, El Paso, Texas. The reentry litigation was grounded on Hernandez’s longstanding claim he was wrongfully evicted from the Sterling Place property following a 2014 foreclosure. The 2014 Foreclosure and Forcible Detainer Litigation[1] Ricardo and Sandra Medina (collectively “the Medinas” or “the borrowers”) signed a note secured by the Sterling Place property. The security instrument attached to the note and signed by the Medinas provided that in the event of foreclosure, the borrowers, or anyone holding under them, agreed to immediately surrender possession of the property to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale. The security instrument also provided that if possession was not surrendered, the parties in possession would be treated as tenants at sufferance who could be forcibly removed by writ of possession or other court proceeding. The Medinas defaulted on the note, so foreclosure proceedings were initiated. Prior to the foreclosure sale, however, Hernandez[2] and the Medinas verbally agreed that Hernandez could lease the property for three months. Hernandez paid no rent after December 2014. On November 4, 2014, U.S. Bank Trust (“the Bank”) purchased the property at a non- judicial foreclosure sale. Hernandez remained in possession of the property after the foreclosure rent free. A year later, on November 3, 2015, the Bank sent Hernandez notice to vacate. When Hernandez failed to vacate, the Bank filed a forcible detainer suit in the justice court. A jury awarded possession to the Bank, and the justice court entered judgment in the Bank’s favor. Hernandez appealed the forcible detainer judgment to County Court at Law Number Three where summary judgment was granted in favor of the Bank. Hernandez appealed the judgment to this Court where we eventually dismissed the appeal as moot on May 11, 2017 because Hernandez was removed by writ of execution on March 13, 2017 after failing to timely post a supersedeas bond that would have stayed the order of removal. See Hernandez v. US Bank Trust, NA for LSF8 Master Participating Trust, No. 08-16-00290-CV, 2017 WL 1953291, at *1-2 (Tex.App.—El Paso May 11, 2017, no pet.)(mem. op.). The 2017 Writ of Reentry Litigation We adopt the following additional factual summary from a previous appeal: During the pendency of that [the forcible detainer] appeal, the Appellees, Alberto Enrique Hernandez and Reynaldo Aaron Morales, placed a winning bid via an online auction on February 2, 2017 to purchase the subject property, and they executed a real estate Purchase Agreement for the property the following day. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, Appellees became obligated to buy and [the Bank] became obligated to deliver a deed and convey title to Appellees upon satisfaction of certain conditions to the closing of the transaction. One of the conditions required Appellees to deposit the purchase proceeds balance with the designated title company and the Purchase Agreement required the closing to occur on or before 45 days from the execution of the Purchase Agreement. [The Bank], as trustee for LSF8 Master Participation Trust, signed a Special Warranty Deed for the property on February 27, 2017. The deed was delivered to [the Bank] Trust’s attorney. The writ of possession was executed on March 13, 2017 and Appellants were vacated from the subject property. The trial court determined that after February 27, 2017, and on or before March 16, 2017, the Special Warranty Deed was delivered to the title company to be held in escrow until the conditions of the closing were satisfied. The transaction closed on March 16, 2017, and Appellees satisfied all conditions to the closing, including depositing the balance of the purchase proceeds with the title company. In accordance with the Purchase Agreement, the Special Warranty Deed was delivered to Appellees on that date, and it was filed and recorded in the official records of El Paso County, Texas, on March 21, 2017. On April 13, 2017, Appellants filed an application for writ of reentry in the Justice Court, Precinct 7, of El Paso County, Texas, alleging that Appellees had unlawfully evicted them and locked them out of the property. They also sought damages. The Justice Court denied the application, and Appellants pursued an appeal to the County Court at Law No. 3. Finding that title to the property did not convey until the closing on March 16, 2017, the County Court at Law denied the application for writ of reentry and dismissed the cause with prejudice. Hernandez v. Hernandez, 547 S.W.3d 898, 899–900 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2018, pet. denied). We affirmed the County Court at Law’s judgment on March 29, 2018. Id. at 901. The Texas Supreme Court denied Hernandez’s petition for review on July 20, 2018, and his motion for rehearing was denied on August 31, 2018. Hernandez v. Hernandez, No. 18-0509 (Tex. 2018). The 2018 Bill of Review Litigation and Vexatious Litigant Declaration Hernandez filed a petition for bill of review on December 6, 2018. The petition alleged Appellees misled the courts in the reentry litigation by submitting a “redacted and incomplete” purchase agreement entered between Appellees as subsequent buyers of the property, and the Bank as seller, “which [allegedly] misrepresented the scope of the buyer’s legal obligations to [Hernandez] under the [purchase] [a]greement.” The petition also alleged Hernandez was wrongfully evicted because Appellees “never provided [Hernandez] any notice to vacate as they were required to” and again sought “a writ of reentry.” Appellees filed their answer in the trial court on December 28, 2018. On January 8, 2019, Hernandez filed an application for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and temporary injunction (“TI”), which the Appellees answered on March 27, 2019, and which was denied by the trial court on March 29, 2019. Hernandez immediately appealed the denial of the TI by filing a notice of appeal on April 5, 2019. Meanwhile, on March 20, 2019, within 90 days of filing their Original Answer to the petition for bill or review, Appellees filed in the trial court a motion to declare Hernandez a vexatious litigant.[3] The motion alleged in part that Hernandez’s bill of review was without merit because Appellees owed no obligation to Hernandez under the purchase agreement and Hernandez’s claim that he was wrongfully evicted was previously decided against him in the reentry litigation. Appellees also alleged Hernandez “has maintained at least seven other ongoing cases in El Paso County Courts against the same Defendants alleging the same causes of actions, claims, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, within the last two years.” The motion attached eleven exhibits demonstrating the finality of the reentry litigation and a chart identifying numerous cases filed by Hernandez or his company against Appellees. On April 17, 2019, after a hearing, and while the TI appeal was pending in this Court, the trial court granted the vexatious litigant motion in a written order which included the following findings: [T]here is no reasonable probability that [Hernandez] would have prevailed in the instant litigation against [Appellees]; and that after litigation has been finally determined against [Hernandez], that [Hernandez] has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate, in propria persona, the cause of action, claim, controversy, and issues of fact or law determined or concluded by the final determination against the same party or defendant as to whom the ligation was finally determined, in violation of section 11.054(2)(B) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court further finds that [Hernandez] meets the criteria for being determined a vexatious litigant under section 11.054(2) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The discussion, analysis, comments and ruling of the Court during the hearing on Defendants’ Vexatious Litigant Motion are also incorporated in this order as if set forth fully herein. The vexatious litigant order further required Hernandez to post a security bond in the amount of $10,000 and stayed the proceedings until such time that Hernandez posted the bond. The order further stated failure to pay the bond within thirty days would result in the dismissal of the suit and that Hernandez was prohibited from filing any new litigation in a Texas court unless he obtained permission from a local administrative law judge. After Hernandez failed to post the bond, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss. After a hearing, the trial court entered findings that Hernandez failed to post the bond or obtain a prefiling order, granted the motion, and dismissed the suit with prejudice on September 27, 2019. This appeal followed. Meanwhile, on February 6, 2020, after the petition for bill of review was dismissed by the trial court, but before the judgment of dismissal was final due to Hernandez’s appeal of same, we affirmed the trial court’s denial of the TI on the ground that Hernandez failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Hernandez v. Hernandez, 596 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2020, no pet.). We also denied a request by Appellees to sanction Hernandez under Rule 45 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for allegedly filing a frivolous appeal because in our view, the “bill of review—and [the TI] appeal—involve[d] additional facts and a different issue than were presented in [the reentry proceeding].” See id. at 409. Litigation Filed By Hernandez or His Company Against Appellees Appellees attached to their vexatious litigant motion a list of cases initiated by Hernandez or his company against Appellees, which included most of the following:[4]
