### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 573 -CV
April and Joshu a Van Hoose , Appellan ts

v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF MI LAM COUNTY , 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 31,9 72 , HO NORAB LE ED MAGRE , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M OR

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellants April and Joshua Van Hoose , appea ring pro s e, appe al from the tr ial court’s g rant of summary judgme nt in favor of Vande rbilt Mor tga g e and F inance , I nc., on a br eac h of contra ct claim re g ardinga manuf actur ed home r etail inst al l m en t contrac t. We affirm the tria l
c ourt ’s jud g me nt.
BACK GR OUND

Vande rbilt was the holder of a manufa cture d home reta il installment contra ct sig ned b y t h e V anH o o s e s i nc o n n e c t i o nw i t h t h e i r p u r c h a s e o f

a m an u f a c tu r e d h o m e i n A u g u s t 1 9 9 9
. In October 2007, Vande rbilt filed suit ag ainst the Van H ooses for brea ch of c ontrac t on the g rounds that they had def aulted on their mortg ag e pay ments. Vande rbilt soug ht forec losure and r epossession of th e m an u f

a c tu r e d h o m e , j u d g m e n t o n t h e u np a i d b a l an c e u n d e r t h e c o n t r a c t , an d a t t o r ne y ’s fe e s. Vande rbilt subsequently

serv e d th e V a n H o o ses with reque sts for admissions reg ardingeac h elementWhil e the Va n Hooses do not ac tually

ref ere nce the reque sts for admissions in their brief 1 on appea l, we will assume that their state ment reg ardingtheir fa ilure to “timely and cor rec tly respond to Summ ary J udg ment” includes the failure t o respond to Vande rbilt’s reque sts for admissions, as summary judgme nt was pre dicated, a t least in part, on the de emed a dmissions

.

2 of it s b re ac h o f contra ct claim. The se re quests went unansw ere d by the Van H ooses and we re deeme d admitted. See Tex
. R
. C i v . P . 198.2(c) . I n Marc h 2008, Vande rbilt filed a motion for summary judgme nt, attachingthe dee med admissions, as well as copies of the contra ct, the notice of d e f a u l t s e n t t o t h e V an H o o s e s b y V an d e r b i l t , t h e n o t i c e o f a c c e l e r a t i o n an d d e ma ndfo r f ull pay ment, and the a ffidavit of a Vande rbilt repre sentative at testing to the de fault, the de ficienc y amount, and the supportingdocuments. The Van Hoose s did not respond to the motion, and after a hea ring in which J oshua Va

n Ho o s e re p re s ented the a ppellants, the trial cour

t gr anted summary judgme nt, stating that in l ight of the deemed admis sions, “the Court has no choice but to g rant the motion for summary

judgme nt.” The V an H o o s es t h en filed a “ Motion to S et Aside Summary Judg me nt, or

No tic e of Ap pe a l,” wh ic h w a s f

or wa rd e d to thi s Co ur

t a s a no tic e of a pp e a l.
DI SCU SSIO N The Va n Hooses’ br ief on a

ppeal doe s not contain a list o f i s s ues pre sented for revie w. See Tex. R. App. P . 38.1(f) (re quiring appellant’ s bri ef to “state c oncisely all issues or points presented f

or re view”) . Howeve r, the Va n Ho o s es appe ar to be making two arguments on appea l—that the summary judgme nt should be reve rsed be cause t h eir failure to re spond to the motion o r an s we r Vande rbilt’s reque sts for admissions was not intentional or due to consc ious ind if fe re nc e , a nd tha t summa ry jud g me nt wa s impr op e r be c a us e Va nd e rb ilt fa ile d to pr op e rl y

a pp ly pay ments to their acc ount, improperly char g ed them for

insurance cover ag e, and “ modified the due dates of the contra ct.” 1At the s ummary -judg ment hear ing, in r esponse to the c ourt’s statement that the una nswere d 2 re qu e sts fo r a dmi ssi on s w e re de e me d a dmi tte d, Mr . V an H oo se re sp on de d, “ I ’m no t arguin g that, Your Honor .” When the court later e x plained, “B ut y ou’ve a dmitted alrea dy that what he’ s suing y ou for is true,” Mr. Van Hoose stated, “I ’m admitting that what he’s filing under is true, but i f y ou a c tua lly loo k at th e date s, the re ’s a dis c re pa nc y .” Th is s ta te ment , refe rr ingto t he Va n H oo se s’ argument that Vande rbilt imposed an incorrec t due date on their mortg ag e pay ments, appea

rs to be a conc ession reg ardingthe dee med admissions. 3

A p art y is no t requ ire d to re sp on d to a tr a dit ion a l mo tio n f

or su mma ry jud g me nt. Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydroc arbons Corp. , 98 S.W .3d 682, 687 (Tex. 2002). I n the pre sent ca se, howeve r, the Van Hooses not only failed to re spond to the motion for summary judgme nt, but failed to respond to Vande rbilt’s discovery reque sts, leading the tri al co urt to g rant summary judgme nt ba se d o n d e e me d a dmi ssi on s. I f a pa rt y fa ils to re sp on d to a re qu e st fo r a dmi ssi on s, the re qu e st i s
c on sid e re d a dmi tte d. Te x. R. C iv. P. 19 8. 2( c ). “ A ma tte r a dmi tte d un de r thi s r ule is c on c lus ive ly established as to the party making the admission unless the court pe rmits the party to withdraw or

a me nd the a dmi ssi on .” Te x. R. C iv. P. 1 98 .3 . T his rul e ap pli e s e qu a lly to p ro se lit ig ants a nd

to those repr esente d by

counsel. See M

ans f i el d S t a te Bank v . Cohn , 573 S.W .3d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978) (“T here cannot be two sets of proc edura l rules, one f o r l i t i g ants with counsel and the oth e r f or lit ig ants re pr e se nti ngthe mse lve s. L iti g ants wh o re pr e se nt the mse lve s must c omp ly wi th the a pp lic a ble pr oc e dura l r

ule s, or e lse the y wo uld be g ive n a

n unf a ir adv ant age o ver

lit ig a nts repr esente d by counsel.” ). A trial court may permit the withdraw al or amendment of a n admission if the pa rt y sh ow s g oo d c a

us e a nd the c ourt fi nd s th a t th e op po sin g pa rt ie s w ill no t be un du ly prejudice d and that pre sentation of the mer its will be subser ved. Te x . R. Civ. P . 198.3. I n the pre sent ca se, the Va n Hooses do n o t d ispute their re ceipt of the reque sts for admissions and did not seek to withdraw or amend the deeme d admissions at a ny point during the pr oc e e din g s. I nstead, they filed a “ Motion to Set Aside S ummary J udg ment, or Notice of Appe al,” 2The Va n Hooses state, “ Responses wer e not filed c orre ctly by the Def endant[s] is in part 3 [si c] due to A

pril Van Hoose’s medical conditions (Sy stemic Lupus and Pulmonary Hy perte nsion) wh ic h he r doc tor state s tha t [ sic ] the a dd iti on a l stre ss o f c ourt is a n im me dia

te thr e a t to he r h e a lth and life.” We note that J oshua Van Hoose pa rticipated in the summar

y -judg ment hear ing a

nd filed multipl e pro se pleading s throug hout the course of the litigation, including a counter claim for br eac h of fiducia ry duty

. 4 in which they

state that their f

ailure to re spond to the motion for summary judgme nt was due in pa

rt to April Van Hoose ’s medica l condition. Be cause th er e i s no separ ate discussion re g ardingthe 3 deeme d admissions, we will assume that this statement also constitutes an a ssertion that their fa ilure to r e sp on d to the re qu e sts fo r a dmi ssi on s c an b e a ttr ibute d to Ap ri l’ s me dic a l c on dit ion . A s a re su lt, we liber ally

construe the Van Hoose s’ post-judg ment motion to be requesting leave to withdraw the d e e me d a d mi s s io n s an d f il e a late r e s p o n s e to s u mm ar y judg ment. S

ee W heele r v. Gree n , 157 S.W .3d 439, 442 (Tex. 2005) (h o l d i ng that, while litigant “ never filed a motion to withdraw de e me d a dmi ssi on s o r a

mot ion to a llo w a

la te re sp on se to t

he su mma

ry jud g me nt, the argume nts and re quests in her motion for ne w trial we re sufficie nt to put the trial court on notice of exactly that complaint”). We will first addr ess t h e q u es t i o n of whe ther the V an Hoose s should have bee n allowed to withdra

w their de emed a dmissions

. The Te x as Supreme Court he ld in W he e le r that a

pa rt y sh ou ld h a ve the op po rt

un ity to withdraw deemed a dmissions “upon a show ing of (1) g ood cause , and (2) no undue pre judice,” even if the issue is r aised for the first time in a motion for new trial. Id. To establish g ood cause , the par ty seekingt o withdraw the deeme d admissions must show that their fa ilure to respond w as not intentional or the result of conscious indiffer ence , but the result of accident or mist ake. Id. ; see also Carpenter , 98 S.W .3d at 687-88. In W heele r , the par

ty seekingto wi t h d rawadmissions was a pro se litigant who ha d miscalculate d the dea dline to file her r esponses a nd inadver

tently filed them5

tw o d ay s a ft e r t

he y we re du e . 1 57 S.W. 3d

a t 44 1. Th e c ourt

he ld, “ On

thi s r e c or d, the low e r c ourt s could have conclude d that [W heele r] was wrongon her dates and wr ong on how to corr ect them, but not that either wa s the result of intent or c onscious indiffer ence .” Id. at 442.

I n the pre sent ca se, howe ver, the Van Hooses do not argue that their f ailure to re spond to the reque sts for admissions was a r esult of accident or mistake , but simpl y argue that it was due “in par t,” to Ms. Van Hoose ’s medica l condition, which re q u i re d h er to avoid the stress of c ourt proce eding s. Be cause a showing of g ood cause require s a party to show that their fa ilure to respond
wa s a re su lt of a c c ide nt or mis take , we ho ld that the Va n Hoo se s hav e fa ile d to e sta bli shg oo d c a

us e to support the withdrawa l of their dee med admissions. See id. ; Carpenter , 98 S.W .3d at 687 -88.

I n a dd iti on , th e “ g oo d ca

us e ” sta nd ard g ov e rn ingthe wi thd ra wa l of a dmi ssi on s a lso applies to motions for leave to file a late summary -judg ment response
. See Carpente r , 98 S.W .3d

a t 68 7- 88 (h old ingthat tria l c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

de nyingle a ve to f

ile la te re sp on se wher e par ty did not meet “g ood cause ” standard)

. I n light of our deter mination that the Van Hoose s have f ailed to establish g ood cause to w ithdraw their admissions, we further hold that they have not shown g ood cause for f

ailing to timely

respond to the motion for summary judgme nt and ar e there fore not entitled to file a late r esponse. The Van Hoose s’ first issue on appe al is overr uled. I n their sec ond issue on appea l, the Van Hoose s asser t that summary

judgme nt was imp ro pe r b e c a

us e the y wo uld no t ha ve de fa ult e d o n th e c on tr a c t if Va nd e rb ilt ha d n ot i mpr op e rl y
cre dit ed pay

ments to their acc ount, “improperly modified the due da

tes of the c ontrac t,” and improperly

ch a r g e d th e m f o r in s u r a n c e cove rag e. In addition to contradicting the dee med admissions pr e se nte d to the tr ia l c ourt a t th e su mma

ry -j ud g me nt h e ari ng , th e se a sse rt ion s in the Va n H oo se s’6

br ie f o n a ppeal are una c c omp anie d b y c itatio ns to t

he re c or d o r s up po rt ingle g a l a uth or ity . A s a result, we c onsider this issue to be inadequa tely briefe d and dec line to addre ss it. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) (re quiring “appr opriate c itations to authorities and to the rec ord”)

. CO NC LU SION I n light of our

deter mination that the trial court did n o t err in gr anting summary judgme nt in favor of

Vande rbilt, we af

firm the trial c ourt’s orde r.

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: May

8, 2009