In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine the state believes someone is using their property for illegal activities, like a drug house. They can seize that property. In this case, the state accused several businesses and people of using their assets in a fraudulent scheme. The court agreed that the state had enough initial evidence to seize those assets, and the seizure process followed the law, meaning the businesses and people couldn't get their property back easily.

For Legal Practitioners

This appellate decision affirms the state's ability to proceed with asset forfeiture upon a showing of probable cause, even when defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and raise due process concerns. The court's detailed review of the evidence presented by the State to establish probable cause is instructive for practitioners on both sides of forfeiture litigation. The ruling reinforces that a lower evidentiary standard applies at the probable cause stage, and procedural due process claims regarding notice and hearing are unlikely to succeed if the State meets its initial burden.

For Law Students

This case tests the standard for probable cause in civil asset forfeiture proceedings and the procedural due process rights of claimants. The appellate court's affirmation of the trial court's finding of probable cause demonstrates that the State need only present reasonable grounds to believe the assets are connected to illegal activity. This aligns with the doctrine that forfeiture proceedings are quasi-in-rem, and the focus is on the property's alleged involvement, not solely the owner's guilt. Exam issue: Analyze the quantum of evidence required to establish probable cause for forfeiture.

Newsroom Summary

Texas can seize assets suspected of being involved in fraud, a state appeals court ruled. The decision allows the state to proceed with forfeiture against several businesses and individuals, finding they presented enough initial evidence of wrongdoing and followed proper procedures.

Constitutional Issues

Whether the State's claims are barred by the statute of limitations.Interpretation of the Texas Water Code and Texas Property Code.

Rule Statements

The statute of limitations begins to run when the cause of action accrues.

A cause of action accrues when a wrongful act causes a legal injury.

Scenario: You own a rental property, and the police suspect illegal drug activity is happening there, even if you weren't aware. The state might try to seize your property.

Your Rights: You have the right to be notified of the seizure and to challenge it in court. You also have due process rights, meaning the state must follow fair procedures. However, if the state shows probable cause that the property was used for illegal activity, they can seize it.

What To Do: If your property is seized, immediately consult with an attorney experienced in asset forfeiture law. Gather all documentation related to your property ownership and any efforts you've made to ensure lawful use of the property.

Is it legal for the state to seize my property if they suspect it's involved in a crime?

It depends. If the state has probable cause to believe your property is connected to criminal activity, they can seize it. However, they must follow specific legal procedures and you have the right to challenge the seizure in court.

This ruling applies in Texas, but similar laws and principles regarding asset forfeiture and probable cause exist in most U.S. jurisdictions.

For Real estate developers and investors

This ruling reinforces that developers and investors must be diligent in ensuring their projects and associated entities are not used for or connected to fraudulent or illegal schemes. Failure to do so could result in the seizure of valuable assets, even if the owner claims ignorance.

For Law enforcement and prosecutors

The decision provides a clear affirmation that the State can proceed with asset forfeiture actions if they can establish probable cause with sufficient evidence. This strengthens their ability to disrupt criminal enterprises by targeting their financial resources.

Q: What is In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas about?

In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas is a case decided by Texas Court of Appeals on January 22, 2026. It involves Mandamus.

Q: What court decided In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas?

In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas was decided by the Texas Court of Appeals, which is part of the TX state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas decided?

In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas was decided on January 22, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas?

The citation for In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What type of case is In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas?

In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas is classified as a "Mandamus" case. This describes the nature of the legal dispute at issue.

Q: What is the full case name for the Texas appellate court decision regarding asset forfeiture?

The full case name is In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas. This case involves multiple appellants challenging the State of Texas's actions.

Q: Who were the main parties involved in the In Re Kona Coast Venture case?

The main parties were the State of Texas, which sought to seize assets, and a group of appellants including Kona Coast Venture, LTD, Kona Coast, LLC, William Korioth, WTK Development, LLC, Guadalupe 306, LP, Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC, Oxbow Land Partners, LLC, Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC, Whitewater Sports, LLC, and TBOTG Development, Inc. These appellants challenged the forfeiture.

Q: What was the core dispute in the In Re Kona Coast Venture case?

The core dispute centered on the State of Texas's attempt to seize assets from various entities and individuals. The appellants contested this seizure, arguing the State lacked probable cause for forfeiture and that the seizure violated their due process rights.

Q: Which court issued the decision in In Re Kona Coast Venture?

The decision in In Re Kona Coast Venture was issued by a Texas appellate court. This court reviewed the trial court's decision regarding the State's asset forfeiture actions against the appellants.

Q: What was the nature of the State of Texas's action against the appellants?

The State of Texas initiated an action to seize assets from the appellants, alleging they were involved in a fraudulent scheme. The appellants challenged the legal basis and procedural fairness of this seizure.

Q: Is In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas published?

In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas. Key holdings: The court held that the State presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the forfeiture of the appellants' assets, as the evidence indicated a strong nexus between the assets and alleged fraudulent activities.; The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the seizure of assets did not violate the appellants' due process rights, as they were provided with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.; The court rejected the appellants' argument that the State's forfeiture petition was deficient, finding it met the pleading requirements for probable cause.; The court determined that the trial court did not err in denying the appellants' motion to quash the seizure warrants.; The court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the State acted in bad faith or abused its discretion in initiating the forfeiture proceedings..

Q: What precedent does In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas set?

In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the State presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the forfeiture of the appellants' assets, as the evidence indicated a strong nexus between the assets and alleged fraudulent activities. (2) The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the seizure of assets did not violate the appellants' due process rights, as they were provided with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. (3) The court rejected the appellants' argument that the State's forfeiture petition was deficient, finding it met the pleading requirements for probable cause. (4) The court determined that the trial court did not err in denying the appellants' motion to quash the seizure warrants. (5) The court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the State acted in bad faith or abused its discretion in initiating the forfeiture proceedings.

Q: What are the key holdings in In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas?

1. The court held that the State presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the forfeiture of the appellants' assets, as the evidence indicated a strong nexus between the assets and alleged fraudulent activities. 2. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the seizure of assets did not violate the appellants' due process rights, as they were provided with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. 3. The court rejected the appellants' argument that the State's forfeiture petition was deficient, finding it met the pleading requirements for probable cause. 4. The court determined that the trial court did not err in denying the appellants' motion to quash the seizure warrants. 5. The court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the State acted in bad faith or abused its discretion in initiating the forfeiture proceedings.

Q: What cases are related to In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas?

Precedent cases cited or related to In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas: State v. One 2002 Toyota Camry; State v. $10,000 U.S. Currency; State v. $14,500.00 U.S. Currency.

Q: What legal standard did the State of Texas need to meet to justify the asset seizure?

The State of Texas needed to establish probable cause for the forfeiture of the assets. The appellate court reviewed whether the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to meet this probable cause standard.

Q: What constitutional rights did the appellants claim were violated?

The appellants claimed that the seizure of their assets violated their due process rights. They argued that the State's actions did not adhere to the procedural safeguards required by the Constitution.

Q: Did the appellate court agree with the appellants' claim of insufficient probable cause?

No, the appellate court disagreed with the appellants. It affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the State of Texas presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the forfeiture of the assets.

Q: How did the court analyze the due process claims made by the appellants?

The court analyzed the due process claims by examining the procedures the State followed in seizing the assets. It concluded that the seizure procedures employed by the State were constitutionally sound and did not violate the appellants' due process rights.

Q: What was the appellate court's ultimate holding in this case?

The appellate court's ultimate holding was to affirm the trial court's decision. This means the court upheld the State of Texas's right to proceed with the forfeiture of the seized assets, finding probable cause and constitutionally sound procedures.

Q: What does 'probable cause' mean in the context of asset forfeiture?

In asset forfeiture, probable cause means that the government has a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that the property to be seized is connected to criminal activity or is itself contraband. The State must present enough evidence to support this belief.

Q: What is the significance of 'due process' in asset forfeiture cases?

Due process in asset forfeiture ensures that individuals and entities are afforded fundamental fairness and legal rights throughout the process. This includes notice of the seizure, an opportunity to be heard, and protection against arbitrary government action.

Q: What is the burden of proof on the State in a civil forfeiture case?

The State typically bears the burden of establishing probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture. Once probable cause is shown, the burden may shift to the claimant to prove that the property is not subject to forfeiture.

Q: How does this case relate to the concept of fraudulent schemes?

The case is directly related to fraudulent schemes because the State alleged that the appellants' assets were involved in such activities. The State's ability to seize assets hinges on proving a connection between the property and the alleged fraud.

Q: What legal doctrines concerning property rights are relevant to this case?

Key doctrines include the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which protects against deprivation of property without fair legal procedures, and the concept of probable cause, which is the standard required for government seizure of property suspected of criminal involvement.

Q: What are the practical implications of this ruling for individuals and businesses in Texas?

This ruling reinforces the State of Texas's authority to seize assets suspected of being involved in fraudulent schemes, provided probable cause is established and due process is followed. It signals that entities and individuals must be diligent in ensuring their assets are not linked to illegal activities.

Q: Who is most affected by the outcome of the In Re Kona Coast Venture decision?

The entities and individuals named as appellants are directly affected, as their assets were subject to seizure. More broadly, any individual or business in Texas whose assets might be linked to alleged fraudulent schemes could be affected by the State's enhanced forfeiture powers.

Q: What changes, if any, does this ruling bring to asset forfeiture laws in Texas?

This ruling does not necessarily change the laws themselves but clarifies their application. It affirms that existing legal standards for probable cause and due process are sufficient for the State to pursue asset forfeiture in cases of alleged fraud.

Q: What compliance considerations should businesses take away from this case?

Businesses should ensure robust compliance programs are in place to prevent involvement in or association with fraudulent schemes. This includes due diligence on partners, customers, and the source of funds to avoid having assets seized.

Q: How might this ruling impact future asset forfeiture litigation in Texas?

This ruling may embolden the State to pursue asset forfeiture more aggressively, knowing that appellate courts will uphold seizures if probable cause and due process are demonstrated. Appellants will likely need to present stronger counter-arguments to challenge forfeiture.

Q: Does this case establish new legal precedent for asset forfeiture in Texas?

While affirming existing principles, the case contributes to the body of Texas case law on asset forfeiture. It reinforces the application of probable cause and due process standards in the context of alleged fraudulent schemes, providing guidance for future cases.

Q: How does this decision compare to other landmark asset forfeiture cases?

This case aligns with the general trend of appellate courts upholding asset forfeiture when the State meets its burden of proof for probable cause and due process. It doesn't appear to break new ground but rather applies established legal doctrines to a specific set of facts.

Q: What was the docket number in In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas?

The docket number for In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas is 03-25-00746-CV. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can In Re Kona Coast Venture, LTD; Kona Coast, LLC; William Korioth; WTK Development, LLC; Guadalupe 306, LP; Guadalupe 306 GP, LLC; Oxbow Land Partners, LLC; Hideout on the Horseshoe, LLC; Whitewater Sports, LLC; And TBOTG Development, Inc. v. the State of Texas be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: How did the case reach the Texas appellate court?

The case reached the appellate court after the trial court made a decision regarding the State's asset forfeiture action. The appellants, dissatisfied with the trial court's ruling, filed an appeal to challenge that decision at the appellate level.

Q: What procedural issues might have been raised by the appellants?

The appellants likely raised procedural issues related to the seizure itself, such as whether they received adequate notice, if they had a meaningful opportunity to contest the seizure, and if the State followed all statutory requirements for forfeiture proceedings.

Q: What is the role of the trial court in asset forfeiture cases like this?

The trial court is where the initial proceedings take place. It hears evidence from both the State and the claimants, determines if probable cause exists for forfeiture, and rules on any procedural or constitutional challenges before potentially ordering the forfeiture.