Thomas Larivee, Jr. v. Geary Louis and Daniel Firepine
03-16-00013-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 26, 2017Background
- Landlord-tenant dispute over condition of the carpet and claimed bad-faith withholding of a security deposit.
- Defendants (appellees) moved for summary judgment, then filed a First Amended Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment combined with a Traditional Summary Judgment motion; the trial court’s final judgment expressly granted the earlier (superseded) no-evidence motion.
- Appellees on appeal contended they relied only on no-evidence grounds in the amended motion and did not preserve their traditional-summary-judgment grounds for appellate review.
- Some no-evidence grounds asserted by appellees either inverted the summary-judgment standard or were otherwise legally insufficient (e.g., arguments about landlord disclosure obligations and what information satisfies Tex. Prop. Code § 92.201).
- The appellate court concluded the trial court’s judgment rested on a superseded motion and that the no-evidence grounds before the court were not properly dispositive or were unavailing.
- Result: the appellate court reversed the final judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may rely on a superseded summary-judgment motion when its final judgment expressly grants that prior motion | Larivee argued the judgment relied on the wrong (superseded) motion and is erroneous | Appellees treated their amended motion as the operative filing but relied on no-evidence grounds only | Court held the judgment could not properly rest on a superseded motion; reversal warranted |
| Whether appellate review may consider alternative traditional-summary-judgment grounds in the amended motion despite appellees not preserving them on appeal | Larivee argued appellees did not preserve traditional SJ grounds, so they cannot be considered | Appellees implicitly relied on Cates to allow consideration of alternative grounds | Court noted Cates allows consideration of preserved grounds but appellees did not preserve traditional grounds for appeal, so those cannot supply disposition here |
| Whether appellees’ no-evidence grounds were legally sufficient or improperly inverted the summary-judgment standard | Larivee argued the no-evidence grounds fail and some misapply the standard | Appellees asserted no-evidence grounds defeat Larivee’s claims (e.g., failure to prove disclosure or carpet condition) | Court found some no-evidence grounds inverted the review standard or were plainly unavailing and thus not dispositive |
| Appropriate remedy when final judgment is grounded on a superseded motion and contested summary-judgment grounds are not properly presented | Larivee sought reversal and remand for further proceedings | Appellees sought to uphold the judgment based on their amended motion’s grounds | Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings rather than affirming on alternative grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1996) (appellate courts may consider all summary-judgment grounds preserved and sometimes may consider other preserved but unruled grounds in the interest of judicial economy)
- Baker Hughes, Inc. v. Keco R&D, Inc., 12 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 1999) (discussing Cates and limits on appellate consideration of summary-judgment grounds)
- Retzlaff v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 135 S.W.3d 731 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (an amended summary-judgment motion completely supersedes the original motion)
- KSWO Television Co. v. KDFA Operating Co., 442 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.) (an amended motion for summary judgment supersedes and supplants the previous motion)