A Texas court has ordered a change of venue in a negligence case involving an assisted living facility. The Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District, ruled on September 17, 2026, that the trial court had abused its discretion by transferring the case to Hood County instead of Tarrant County. This decision affects the parties involved in the case, particularly the estate of a deceased resident, and sets a precedent for future venue disputes in Texas.
The case, titled In Re Welltower TCG Ridea Tenant LLC D/B/A Waterview-The Cove; Sagora Senior Living, Inc.; TCG Holdings, LP; TCG Holdings Genpar, LLC; And Covenant Group Holdings, LP v. the State of Texas (Docket No. 11-26-00194-CV), centers around the estate of Donal R. Schmidt, Sr. The estate filed a lawsuit against several companies associated with the assisted living facility where Schmidt fell from a second-story window, leading to his death. The estate claimed that the companies were negligent in their care of Schmidt.
The dispute arose when the estate filed the lawsuit in Comanche County, arguing that it was the proper venue because that is where Schmidt resided. The companies involved in the lawsuit, referred to as Relators, contested this choice, asserting that the events leading to the lawsuit occurred in Hood County or that the case should be moved to Tarrant County, where one of the companies is headquartered. The trial court initially agreed to transfer the case to Hood County, prompting the Relators to seek a writ of mandamus from the Texas Court of Appeals.
The court ruled that the trial court had clearly abused its discretion by transferring the case to Hood County. According to the court, the Relators had adequately demonstrated that Comanche County was not a proper venue for the lawsuit. The court stated, "By ignoring Relators’ proposed venue and giving RPI essentially a renewed opportunity to select venue, the trial court clearly abused its discretion." The ruling emphasized that the Relators had the right to choose a proper venue when the plaintiff initially selected an improper one.
The ruling also highlighted the importance of venue statutes in Texas, which dictate where lawsuits should be filed. The court noted that the general rule is that lawsuits must be brought in the county where a substantial part of the events occurred or where the defendant's principal office is located. The court found that the estate's choice of venue in Comanche County did not meet these criteria, making the transfer to Hood County inappropriate.
This decision is significant as it clarifies the rules surrounding venue changes in Texas. The court's ruling reinforces that a plaintiff cannot simply choose a venue and then later select a different one if the initial choice is deemed improper. This ruling may have broader implications for future cases where venue disputes arise, ensuring that the balance of rights between plaintiffs and defendants is maintained.
Moving forward, this ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in Texas courts. The decision reinforces the idea that once a plaintiff makes a venue choice, they cannot easily change it without valid reasons. This could lead to more careful consideration of venue choices by plaintiffs in future lawsuits.
As for the next steps, the trial court must comply with the appellate court's ruling by vacating its previous order and transferring the case to Tarrant County by October 2, 2026. Should the trial court fail to comply, a writ of mandamus will be issued to enforce the ruling. There are no indications in the court filing that the ruling will be appealed by either party.