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:CitiCapital Commercial Corp. sued Tracy Tanksley and Anthony Montgomery for conversion, after the two sequestered a truck and trailer Tanksley purchased with the help of a CitiCapital loan. Montgomery was later non-suited, and Tanksley later filed his answer and asserted counter- and cross-claims against three attorneys. CitiCapital moved for traditional summary judgment. It and the attorneys together filed a motion for a no evidence summary judgment. Copies of the motion for summary judgment and the notice of the hearing were sent to Tanksley by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by regular mail to the address used by Tanksley on his pleadings, but the mail went unclaimed. Tanksley did not appear at the summary judgment hearing, and the trial court granted CitiCapital a judgment of nearly $36,000. The attorneys were awarded attorneys’ fees, and Tanksley was ordered to take nothing. Tanksley timely filed a verified motion for continuance, or, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial, a notice of fraud upon the court, and a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The court refers to the rules that set out the requisite amount of notice a non-movant for summary judgment should get, as well as the methods for service of motions. In this instance, the summary judgment motion contains a “Fiat” that states that Tanksley was served by return-receipt mail, to an address on West Wheatland. The fiat does not include the date or time of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. The record, however, also contains a court-stamped notice of hearing. The certificate of service was also said to have been sent to the West Wheatland address under return-receipt conditions. At the hearing, the lawyers admitted that a return receipt had not been secured from Tanksley, and that the post office’s Internet tracking system indicated that the notice had been returned to sender. The attorneys also admitted that, though notices regularly say they are sent by return-receipt mail, they were actually often sent by regular mail. Noting, too, that Tanksley preserved error by filing his verified motion for new trial, the court finds that the record does not reflect that Tanksley received the required notice. OPINION:Lang, J.; FitzGerald, Richter and Lang, 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.