Joseph Vukelich v. Ridgeview Ranch Homeowners Association, Inc.
05-14-00352-CV
| Tex. App. | May 7, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Vukelich alleged the HOA and its management company (CCMC) negligently enforced deed restrictions, resulting in an erroneous fine, emotional distress, and physical injury.
- Vukelich nonsuited direct claims against CCMC and amended to assert CCMC was negligent and the HOA liable under respondeat superior for inadequate supervision of CCMC.
- The HOA filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, arguing Vukelich had no admissible evidence of breach or proximate causation for his negligence claim.
- Vukelich’s response to the motion included only a deposition notice and the HOA’s discovery responses/objections; he offered no affidavits or other evidence of damages, breach, or entitlement to injunctive relief.
- The trial court granted the HOA’s summary judgment disposing of all claims; Vukelich appealed, arguing deficiencies in the HOA’s no-evidence motion and that the court improperly dismissed claims (including injunctive relief) not raised in the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of HOA's no-evidence motion | Vukelich: motion failed to identify elements lacking evidence; also argued respondeat superior meant he needn’t prove HOA breach | HOA: motion challenged essential elements (breach and proximate cause); plaintiff bears burden to produce evidence | Court: HOA adequately challenged breach and causation; Vukelich produced no more than scintilla; summary judgment proper |
| 2. Whether summary judgment improperly disposed claims not raised (injunctive relief) | Vukelich: order dismissed claims (injunction) not addressed in HOA’s motion | HOA: plaintiff’s remaining claims all derive from alleged negligent supervision (i.e., negligence), so motion and order properly read to resolve them | Court: Pleadings show claims arise from same negligence theory; order disposed properly; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- Patino v. Complete Tire, Inc., 158 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (no-evidence SJ shifts burden to non-movant to produce evidence on challenged elements)
- Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2013) (defining "no evidence" standards and "mere scintilla")
- Cooper v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, 325 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (summary judgment may not properly dispose claims not addressed in motion)
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (procedural standards regarding final judgment and claims disposal)