X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:This appeal is from a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellees in a suit brought by appellants (the Thomases) for breach of express and implied warranties and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The Carpet Mills of America defendants submitted a sales invoice for the flooring, two affidavits, a “completion of work” certificate and the motion for summary judgment itself in support of their motion for summary judgment. All of this supporting evidence was later stricken by the trial court as improper summary judgment evidence. All that remained was the motion for summary judgment itself. However, the motion for summary judgment is not summary judgment evidence. Bakali v. Bakali, 830 S.W.2d 251 (Tex. App. � Dallas 1992, no writ). As a result, the Carpet Mills of America defendants submitted no evidence to establish the affirmative defense of disclaimer as a matter of law. The trial court’s order granting traditional summary judgment was improper. The Thomases assert that no-evidence summary judgment was improperly granted for several reasons: 1. in their motion for summary judgment, the Carpet Mills of America defendants failed to specifically allege which elements of the Thomases’ claims lacked supporting evidence; 2. an adequate time for discovery had not passed; 3. the Thomases raised a genuine issue of fact to all elements of their claims; and 4. summary judgment was granted for causes of action that were not addressed in the motion for summary judgment. The court agrees that the Carpet Mills of America defendants failed to specifically allege which elements of the Thomases’ claims lacked supporting evidence and do not reach the remaining issues. In a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the movant must specifically state which elements of the non-movant’s claims lack supporting evidence. The movant cannot rely on an affirmative defenses that it has the burden to prove at trial. Nowak v. DAS Inv. Corp., 110 S.W.3d 677 (Tex. App. � Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.). The Carpet Mills of America defendants’ motion for summary judgment fails to meet the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) because it does not specify any elements of the Thomases’ claims that lack supporting evidence. Rather, the motion alleges that the Thomases lack supporting evidence for their breach of warranty claims because of an affirmative defense � a disclaimer that the Carpet Mills of America defendants argue is contained in the sales agreement for the flooring. Because the Carpet Mills of America defendants’ motion for summary judgment did not specifically state which elements of the Thomases’ claims lacked supporting evidence and relied on the affirmative defense of disclaimer as a basis for no-evidence summary judgment, the court finds that the no-evidence summary judgment motion was improperly granted. OPINION:Lang-Miers, J.; Bridges, FitzGerald and Lang-Miers, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.