623 S.W.3d 918
Tex. App.2021Background
- Plaintiff Garrett (Gareld) Duane Rollins, Jr. alleged historical sexual abuse by Paul Pressler and others and filed suit in 2017. The opinion summarized is a dissent addressing summary-judgment evidence on limitations/unsound-mind tolling.
- In July–September 2004 Rollins sued Pressler in Dallas for simple assault arising from a 2003 hotel-room altercation; the case was mediated and settled the same year.
- The 2004 settlement agreement (signed by Rollins and his lawyer) released claims and provided Pressler would pay Rollins $1,500/month for 25 years (and $100,000 to Rollins’s attorney); payments continued from 2004 into 2017 (≈ $234,000 paid).
- Rollins later asserted in the 2017 suit that he was of unsound mind in 2004 (due to PTSD, alcohol abuse, repressed memories, and alleged religious coercion), and thus the statute of limitations should have been tolled.
- The Pressler-aligned defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they conclusively negated application of the unsound-mind tolling doctrine; the dissent would have held the movants met that burden based on the 2004 lawsuit and settlement entries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (dissent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unsound-mind tolling applied to toll limitations for claims that accrued by 2004 | Rollins: he was of unsound mind in 2004 (PTSD, alcohol, repressed memories, coerced belief) so limitations were tolled | Pressler Defs: Rollins prosecuted and settled a 2004 suit, signed settlement, and received payments — showing he was of sound mind | Dissent: Defendants met burden; evidence conclusively showed Rollins was of sound mind in 2004, so tolling does not apply |
| Whether prosecution and settlement of a 2004 suit are probative of capacity to pursue later claims | Rollins: 2004 suit did not involve sexual-abuse claims; therefore it does not show capacity to sue on later sexual-assault claims | Pressler Defs: Filing, mediation participation, signature on settlement and continued receipt of payments show Rollins understood tortious conduct and controlled his claims | Dissent: Such participation conclusively indicates ability to participate, control, and understand a lawsuit in 2004 |
| Whether the unsound-mind inquiry is limited to plaintiff's specific mental state about the subject matter (i.e., repressed memories of sexual abuse) | Rollins: his specific inability to recall or believe the abuse negates ability to sue earlier | Pressler Defs: Texas law assesses general capacity to manage affairs and participate in litigation, not topic-specific beliefs | Dissent: Texas law evaluates general competency; plaintiff’s subject-specific repression does not substitute for a general incapacity showing |
| Whether plaintiff's life activities and judicial admissions undermine an unsound-mind claim | Rollins: past activities do not alone disprove unsound mind | Pressler Defs: Employment, education, travel, driving, criminal prosecutions, and judicial admissions (pleadings, signature) support soundness | Dissent: While activities alone are not dispositive, combined with the 2004 lawsuit/settlement they conclusively negate unsound-mind tolling |
Key Cases Cited
- Cmty. Health Sys. Prof’l Servs. Corp. v. Hansen, 525 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2017) (summary-judgment standard; when issues are conclusively established)
- Erikson v. Renda, 590 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. 2019) (movant’s burden to negate applicability of tolling doctrines at summary judgment)
- Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752 (Tex. 1993) (unsound-mind tolling applies when mental incapacity prevents participation in suit)
- Doe v. Catholic Diocese of El Paso, 362 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011) (unsound mind vs. adjudicated incompetency; competency assessed by ability to manage affairs)
- Gribble v. Layton, 389 S.W.3d 882 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (purpose of section 16.001 and tolling to protect disabled persons)
- Hargraves v. Armco Foods, Inc., 894 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995) (unsound mind construed broadly; not limited to adjudicated incompetence)
- Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (summary-judgment review requires drawing reasonable inferences in favor of nonmovant)
- Palla v. McDonald, 877 S.W.2d 472 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (unsound-mind tolling where plaintiff had permanent brain injury preventing suit)