Michelle Manautou v. Teachers Insurance and Annuities Association of America
05-13-01035-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 27, 2015Background
- Michelle Manautou sued multiple parties after purchasing a condominium she alleged was contaminated with harmful indoor mold; litigation began in Nov. 2010.
- The case was placed under Level 2 discovery (Rule 190.3); the discovery period expired Sept. 26, 2011.
- Appellees were added as responsible third parties in Nov. 2012 and later converted to defendants by amended petitions in Dec. 2012 and Jan. 2013.
- Appellees moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment in Mar–Apr 2013; cross-appellants sought attorneys’ fees.
- The trial court granted appellees’ summary judgments, denied cross-appellants’ summary-judgment request for attorneys’ fees (including Rule 13 sanctions), and entered final judgment; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in granting no-evidence summary judgment for appellees without allowing additional discovery | Manautou: Summary judgment was premature because discovery should have been reopened after appellees were converted from third parties to defendants to permit intra-party discovery | Appellees: Discovery had closed long before; Manautou could have sought Rule 205 discovery earlier and had repeatedly announced ready for trial | Court: No abuse of discretion—record showed discovery period expired, Manautou agreed to limits and announced readiness, and she did not show what additional discovery was needed |
| Whether refusing to reopen discovery nullifies §33.004 responsible-third-party provisions | Manautou: Denying reopening undermines statutory purpose by preventing meaningful discovery of newly named defendants | Appellees: Statutory mechanism does not guarantee reopening; procedural rules govern discovery timing | Court: Not persuasive here—analysis is fact-specific and no abuse shown under these facts |
| Whether genuine fact issues precluded summary judgment on the merits | Manautou: There was abundant circumstantial evidence and other record evidence creating fact issues (generally asserted) | Appellees: Moved on various traditional and no-evidence grounds; summary judgment supported by motion papers | Court: Manautou failed to identify specific record evidence tied to each summary-judgment ground; issue waived for inadequate appellate briefing |
| Whether cross-appellants were entitled to attorneys’ fees (contractual or Rule 13 sanctions) | Cross-appellants: Entitled to contractual fees under condominium Project Documents and alternatively to Rule 13 sanctions | Manautou: No contract/privity showing; pleading not shown to be groundless via an evidentiary hearing | Court: Denial affirmed—cross-appellants failed to show contractual entitlement as a matter of law and Rule 13 sanctions inappropriate on summary judgment without a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Sw. Bell Yellow Pages, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (factors and abuse-of-discretion standard for adequacy of discovery time under Rule 166a(i))
- Jarvis v. Rocanville Corp., 298 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (appellant must negate all possible grounds when trial court’s summary-judgment order does not state basis)
- Turner v. Turner, 385 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. 1964) (attorneys’ fees recoverable only where provided by statute or contract)
- N.Y. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 856 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993) (Rule 13 sanctions require examination of litigant’s facts and motives; hearing on credibility is required)
- Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge v. Jackson, 732 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987) (appellate courts are not required to search the record for evidence supporting a litigant’s position)
- Tenneco, Inc. v. Enter. Prods. Co., 925 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1996) (requirements for a verified motion for continuance or affidavit to obtain additional discovery before summary judgment)