Valdez v. Robertson
352 S.W.3d 832
Tex. App.2011Background
- Valdez, as an interested party in Martha Jane Valdez's estate, sued Robertson to rescind unwritten contracts with the guardian of the estate.
- Valdez alleged the contracts charged excessive and unconscionable attorney's fees against the estate.
- Robertson moved for summary judgment and served the motion on Valdez's attorney, who was administratively suspended.
- Valdez appeared pro se at the hearing and filed a verified motion for continuance, which the trial court denied, then granted summary judgment.
- Valdez had not filed a response to the motion, and the notice of the motion and hearing was inadequate due to the attorney's suspension.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the denial of continuance was an abuse of discretion and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion. | Valdez contends notice to his suspended attorney was ineffective, depriving him of due process. | Robertson asserts proper notice was provided to the attorney and that the client was not prejudiced. | Yes; the denial was an abuse of discretion; insufficient notice invalidated summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Afri-Carib Enters. v. Mabon Ltd., 287 S.W.3d 217 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] pet. denied) (notice to suspended attorney not imputed to client)
- Milam v. Nat'l Ins. Crime Bureau, 989 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999) (twenty-one days' notice required for summary judgment)
- Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., 485 U.S. 80 (1988) (due process requires adequate notice for summary judgment)
- Leon's Fine Foods of Tex. v. Merit Inv. Partners, 160 S.W.3d 148 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2005) (notice requirements and due process considerations)
- J.J.T.B., Inc. v. Guerrero, 975 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998) (affidavits or verification considerations for continuance)
- Langdale v. Villamil, 813 S.W.2d 187 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991) (informal affidavit standards in continuance motions)
- Cannon v. ICO Tubular Servs., 905 S.W.2d 380 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (regarding continuance and notice standards)