in Re Carlton Sewell
06-15-00032-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 25, 2015Background
- Decedent Velma Ruth Fitzgerald died December 31, 2007; two competing wills were filed (Aug. 8, 2007 will probated as a muniment of title on Jan. 15, 2008; contestants sponsor an earlier April 26, 1993 will).
- Discovery began with a May 13, 2008 deposition of proponent Carlton Sewell; no discovery control plan was entered so TRCP 190.3 deadlines applied.
- Sewell’s counsel withdrew twice (2009 and 2013); Sewell was pro se when Contestants served Requests for Admission by certified mail on May 13, 2010.
- Sewell did not respond; Contestants filed a Certificate of Deemed Admissions on Jan. 12, 2015 (the morning of jury selection), triggering Sewell’s counsel to file a Motion to Withdraw Deemed Admissions on Feb. 10, 2015.
- The county court held a hearing April 7, 2015 and entered an order April 14, 2015 denying Sewell’s motion; Sewell then petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus challenging that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Contestants) | Defendant's Argument (Sewell/Relator) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Sewell’s motion to withdraw deemed admissions | The deemed admissions were properly established (no response); withdrawal would unduly prejudice Contestants and delay trial | Failure to respond was excusable (pro se status at time of service, lack of notice to later counsel, longtime lapse between service and Certificate); withdrawal serves the merits | Trial court denied the motion (order Apr. 14, 2015); relator seeks mandamus to overturn denial |
| Whether Sewell showed "good cause" under TRCP 198.3(a) | Contestants argue Sewell cannot show accident or mistake and acted with conscious indifference | Sewell contends good cause: pro se when served, did not understand consequences, subsequent counsel unaware, inconsistent prior deposition testimony showing merits dispute | Fact question for trial court; court denied withdrawal (relator asserts this was an abuse) |
| Whether withdrawal would cause undue prejudice under TRCP 198.3(b) | Contestants: withdrawal would prejudice because they relied on deemed admissions and have witnesses/evidence that may be lost or need additional discovery (including a key contestant with declining health) | Sewell: Contestants had ample time (4.5+ years) to conduct discovery; many depositions and written discovery already occurred; prejudice is not established by merely having to prove contested facts | Trial court found prejudice outweighed Sewell’s showing and denied motion |
| Adequacy of appeal vs. mandamus (whether relief by appeal is inadequate) | Contestants implicitly argue normal remedies are adequate | Sewell relies on Walker and related authorities: a merits‑preclusive discovery sanction (here, deemed admissions) can be remedied only by mandamus when it effectively prevents presentation of a viable defense at trial | Relator filed mandamus; appellate court jurisdictional basis invoked (Tex. Gov’t Code §22.221); whether mandamus will issue awaits appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus standard; appeal inadequate when discovery sanction precludes presentation of merits)
- In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2005) (mandamus issues reviewed for clear abuse of discretion)
- Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. 1996) (interpretation of Rule 198.3; good cause standard for withdrawing admissions)
- Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2005) (pro se status considered in Rule 198.3 good‑cause analysis; withdrawal appropriate where admissions would be merits‑preclusive)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs, 968 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. 1998) (withdrawing deemed admissions when deposition earlier put propounding party on notice of dispute; undue prejudice analysis)
- In re Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc., 45 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001) (trial court abused discretion denying withdrawal of deemed admissions; mandamus relief appropriate)
- In re Rozelle, 229 S.W.3d 775 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (withdrawing deemed admissions received while litigant was pro se; mandamus granted)
- Trans‑American Nat. Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (sanctions precluding presentation of merits require flagrant bad faith or similar conduct)
- Marino v. King, 355 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2011) (requests for admission should be a tool, not a trap; due‑process concerns when used to preclude merits)
- FDIC v. Prusia, 18 F.3d 637 (8th Cir. 1994) (prejudice does not include the burden of having to prove the truth of withdrawn admissions)