CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
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:Joseph and Adrienne Gallien moved into their “dream home,” according to the 6th Court of Appeals, but later, motivated in part by a pending foreclosure action against the house, brought suit against several entities involved in their purchase of the home. In 53 paragraphs of their original pro se petition, the Galliens sought to certify a class of homeowners in their position and alleged 12 causes of action generally involving alleged improper charges, illegally increased mortgage payments and failures to handle taxes properly, thus adding to the Galliens’ expenses. Notably, they also requested various forms of injunctive and declaratory relief. The timeline of the case progressed as follows: On Aug. 3, 2004, Galliens filed an original petition. On Aug. 3, 2004, the trial court granted a temporary restraining order stopping the foreclosure. On Aug. 31, 2004, Washington Mutual filed special exceptions to the original petition. On Sept. 10, 2004, the trial court held a hearing on the special exceptions. Later that day, the Galliens filed their first amended petition. On Sept. 14, 2004, the trial court signed an order sustaining Washington Mutual’s special exceptions only as to the original petition. On Sept. 21, 2004, Washington Mutual filed additional special exceptions, apparently in response to the first amended petition. On Feb. 10, 2005, all defendants filed a joint “No Cause of Action” motion for summary judgment. On March 11, 2005, the trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed all of the Galliens’ claims with prejudice. Of the six original defendants, only one of them was apparently granted special exceptions regarding the first amended petition. Washington Mutual and Fleet argued that the trial court’s order striking the Galliens’ pleadings was, for all purposes, the final judgment in this case, because that order struck with prejudice all causes of action that the Galliens had asserted. The Galliens did not timely file a notice of appeal relating directly to the order striking those pleadings; thus, according to Washington Mutual and Fleet, the instant appeal is untimely, and the 6th Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. Generally, the 6th Court stated, one may appeal only from final orders or judgments unless a statutory provision authorizes an appeal from an interlocutory order. To be a final judgment for purposes of appeal, the judgment must dispose of all parties and all issues, the court stated. The trial court’s order struck the majority of the causes of action asserted in the Galliens’ pleadings. However, in paragraphs 55 and 56, the Galliens had sought injunctive and declaratory relief. These remaining allegations, the 6th Court stated, constitute sufficient live pleadings such that it can conclude the order striking pleadings was not a final order for purposes of appeal. The 6th Court concluded that the trial court’s order granting the joint motion to strike was not the final judgment in this case. The Galliens’ failure to appeal from the order striking the majority of their pleadings did not divest the 6th Court of jurisdiction when the order striking the pleadings did not dispose of all the Galliens’ claims, the court stated. The court overrules the contention that it lacked jurisdiction over this appeal. Next, the court states that the motion to strike relied on by the trial court was an unauthorized procedural vehicle. First, the motion was not properly denominated in accordance with the rules of civil procedure. Second, it triggered no specified timetables or protective procedures. Third, it was granted without an opportunity for the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings before their claims were struck. The motion to strike, the court stated, cannot be considered a motion for summary judgment, because it did not comply with the specific procedures outlined in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a. Likewise, it cannot be interpreted as special exceptions because it was not denominated as such, and neither the parties nor the court treated the motion to strike as special exceptions. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize this course of action as means of summarily dismissing a plaintiff’s claims without the opportunity to replead. In this case, the court stated, the net effect of the trial court’s order striking the bulk of the Galliens’ pleadings with prejudice resulted in the dismissal of the Galliens’ case without allowing them an opportunity to amend their pleadings. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by striking with prejudice the majority of the Galliens’ pleadings. Dismissing a suit when issues are disputed, the court stated, without affording the parties their right to a full trial on the merits is an extraordinary sanction allowed only in limited circumstances, none of which were presented by the facts of that case. Likewise, dismissal of the Galliens’ case was equally unreasonable in light of their good-faith attempts to amend their petition and the failure of Washington Mutual and Fleet to follow the established special exceptions procedure to challenge the amended pleading in a proper manner. OPINION:Morriss, C.J.; Morriss, C.J., and Carter and Cornelius, J.J.

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.