C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS GL EN N L . L EF F L ER, Ap pe lla nt,
v. JP MORG ANCH ASE B AN K, N. A. , f /k/ a BA NK ONE , f/k/a F I RST USA BANK, a/k/a CHASE B ANK U.S.A., N.A ., Appellee
. § § § § § § No. 08-07-00320- CV

Appea l from the 34th DistrictCourt of El Paso County , Texas (TC#2006-925)

O P I N I O N This i s an ap p eal from the g rantingof a tra ditional and no-evide nce motion for summar y judgme nt in favor of J P Morg an Chase Ba nk, N.A. (Chase or Appe llee) in a suit alleg ing c onversion, neg lige nce, br eac h of contra ct, fra ud, and usury . Glenn L . L eff ler (L eff ler or A ppellant) a

rgues that the tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in g ra nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt i n f

a vo r o f C ha se . We a ff

ir m. I. F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND Ap pe lla nt s ue d App e lle e on

F e br ua ry 24 , 2 00 6 f

or c on ve rs ion , n e g l i g e n c e , b r e a c h o f c o nt r a c t, fra ud, and usury
. Appellant alleg ed he was double billed by the Appellee in 1996 in the amount of $3 ,9 94 .7 4 p lus int e re st, late fe e s, and oth e r am ounts . App e lla nt h a d tw o c re dit

c ard a c c ounts wi th Ap p el lee; the f

irst ended in 4425 and the second a ccount in 8972. On or about J une 6, 1996 Appellant requested that the ba lance on the 4425 ac count be tra nsfer red to the 8972 a ccount. The July 19 96 state me nts fo r b oth a c c ounts re fl e ct the $ 3, 99 4. 74 tr ans fe r a nd re fe re nc e the same transac tion number, F336600H C000C2156. The September 1996 state ment for a c c o u nt 4 4 25 shows a subseque nt char g e for a balan ce t ransfer of

$3,761.57 and has a

ref ere nce numbe r ofF336600JY000C4206. Although ac count 4425 was closed in June of 1996 after the balanc e tra

nsfer , it c ou ld b e c ha

rg e d o n f or a pe ri od of thr e e months
. Appellant alleg ed that the orig inal balanc e tra nsfer red f rom ac count 4425 to acc ount 8972 of $3 ,9 94 .7 4 w a s c ha

rg e d ba c k to a c c ount 44 25 in the a mou nt of $3 ,7 61 .5 7 and

that he re pe a te dly
re qu e ste d th a t Ch a se re mov e the c ha rg e fr om a c c ount 4 42 5. Ap pe lla nt p a id ac c ount 442 5 in f

ull in De c e mbe r o f 2 00 3. On

Janu ary 5, 20 05 , o ve r a

y e ar l a te r, App e lla

nt s e nt a wr itt e n r e qu e st t o Appellee for the return of the doubl e-billed funds; this reque st was denied in wr iting by the Appellee on Fe bruar

y 19, 2005. On Fe bruar

y 24, 2006, Appellant filed suit. On Dec ember 14, 2006, Appellee filed a Tr aditional an d No -E vidence Motion for Summary J udg ment. On J uly

31, 2007, the trial court g rante d the summary judgme nt, without st ating the grounds, and a take-nothing judgme nt was enter ed. On a

ppeal Appe llant challeng es the trial c ourt’s g ranting of the T raditional Motion for Summary J udg ment but does not challeng e the g rantingof the No- Evidence Motion for Summary Judg me nt. II. DI SCU SSIO N We review the gra

nting of a sum mary judgme nt de novo. Va le nc e Op e ra tin g Co . v . D or se tt , 16 4 S.W. 3d

65 6, 66 1 ( Te x. 20 05 ); Pr ov ide nt L ife& Ac c ide nt I ns . Co . v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 211, 215 (T e x. 20 03 ). Sum mary

jud g me nts mus t st and

on the ir ow n me ri ts. R h o n e - P o u le n c, I n c . v . Steel , 99 7 S. W.2 d 2 17 , 2 23 (T e x. 19 99 ). Whe n r e vie wi nga summa ry jud g me nt, we take a s tr ue a ll evidenc e fa

vorable to the nonmovant. See Sc ience Spectrum, Inc. v . Martinez , 941 S.W .2d 910, 911 (Tex. 1997); Friendswood Dev. Co. v . McD ade &Co. , 9 26 S.W. 2d 28 0, 28 2 ( Te x. 19 96 ); W

ornick Co. v. Casas , 856 S.W .2d 732, 733 (Tex. 1993). We indulge ever y rea sonable infe renc e and re solve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor
. See Sc ienceSpectrum, I nc. , 9 41 S.W. 2d

a t 91 1; Friendswood Dev . Co. , 9 26 S.W. 2d

a t 28 2; W ornick Co. , 8 56 S.W. 2d

a t 73 3; Nixon v. Mr. Property M anageme ntCo., Inc. , 690 S.W .2d 546, 548-49 (Te x . 1985). On a ppeal, th e m o v an t still bear s the burden of showing that there is no g enuine issue of materia l f act, and that the movant is e ntitled to judg ment
as a matter of law
. See Nixon , 690 S.W .2d at 548. Tr adi ti ona l Sum m ar y J udgm e nt T EX .R.C IV .P. 1 6 6 a

p r o v i d e s a

m e t h o d o f s u m m ar i l y

t e r m i n a t i n g a

c a s e w h e ni tc l e arl y appea rs that only

a question of law

is involved and that there is no ge nuine fa ct issue. See Swilley v. Hughe s , 488 S.W .2d 64, 68 (Tex. 1972). T h e p ar t y moving f or summary

judgme nt car

ries the burden of establishing that no materia l fac t issue exis ts and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See T EX .R.C IV .P. 16 6a ; W ornick Co. , 8 56 S.W. 2d

a t 73 3. Th e mov ant m

us t es tab li shits ri g ht t o s umm ary

jud g me nt o n th e issue s e xpre ssl y pr e se nte d to the tr ia l c ourt by c on c lus ive ly proving all elements of the m o vant’s ca use of a ction or def

ense a s a matter of

law. See W

alker v

. Ha rri s , 924 S.W. 2d

37 5, 37 7 ( Te x. 19 96 ); Centeq Realty, I nc. v. Sie gler , 8 9 9 S. W. 2 d 1 9 5 , 1 9 7 ( T e x. 1995). A defe ndant moving for summary judgme nt on the aff irmative defe nse of limitations has the burden to c onclusively

establish that defe nse. See V elsicol Chem. Corp. v. W

inograd , 956 S.W .2d 529, 530 (Tex. 1997). No -E vid e nc e Sum m ar y J udgm e nt A no-e vidence summary

judgme nt under Rule 166a(i) is re viewed unde r a le g al suffic iency standard. Martinez v. Lee ds , 2 18 S.W. 3d 84 5, 84 8 ( Te x.Ap p. –E l P aso 20 07 , n o p e t.) ; W yatt v. Lon go ria , 33 S.W .3d 26, 31 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2000, no pet.). The party moving f or a no- evidenc e
summa ry jud g me nt m

us t a sse rt that th e re is no ev ide nc e of on e or mor e e sse nti a l ele me nts of a c la im or def ense on w hich the nonmovant would have the burden of proof at trial. Martinez , 218 S.W .3d
a t 84 8; see T EX .R.C IV .P. 166a(i). The moving pa rty must specific ally

state the e lements as to which there is no evidence
. Gray v. W oodville Health Care Center , 225 S.W .3d 613, 616 (Tex.App.–ElP aso 20 06 , p e t de nie d) ; see T EX .R.C IV . P
. 1 6 6 a ( i )
. T h e b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e n o n m ov a nt t o produce evidenc e raising a fac t issue on the cha lleng ed ele ments. Martinez , 218 S.W .3d at 848. To raise a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t, the nonm ovant m ust set forth more than a scintilla of probative
e vid e nc e as to an e sse nti a l e le me nt o f h is c la im o r d e fe ns e . Ano -e vid e nc e summa ry jud g me nt i s pr op e rl y g ra nte d if the pla int if

f f a ils to b ri ngfo rt

h mo re tha

n a sc int ill a

of pr ob a tiv e e vid e nc e to r a ise a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t as to the cha lleng ed ele ments. Jack son v. Fiesta Mart, Inc ., 979 S.W .2d 68, 70-71 (Te x .App.–Austin 1998, no pet.). On App eal Where the district c ourt does not state the ba sis for g rantingsummary judgme nt, th e appellant must neg ate a ll gr ounds that support the judg ment. See Star-Telegram, Inc. v . Doe , 915 S.W .2d 471, 47 3 ( Te x. 19 95 ); S

ta t eF a rm F i r e & C a s . C o . v . S

. S

. & G

. W. , 858 S.W
. 2 d 3 7 4 , 381 (Tex. 1993); Carr v. Brasher , 776 S.W .2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1989). I f the a ppellant fa ils to negate ea ch g round on
w h ic h th e ju d g me n t ma

y h av e b e e n r e n d e r e d , w e mu s t u p h o ld th e s u mm ar

y ju d g me nt. See Carr , 77 6 S. W.2 d at 56 9; TGS-NOPEC Geophy sical Co. v. Combs , 268 S.W .3d 637, 644 (Tex.App.–Austin 2008, pet. filed). When a g round upon which summary judgme nt ma y have be en rende red, w h et h er p ro p erly or improper ly , is not challeng ed, the judg ment must be aff irmed. Holloway v. Starnes , 840 S.W .2d 14, 23 (Tex.App.–Dallas 1992, wr it denied). I n this case the A

ppellee f iled a No- Evidence and a T raditi o n al Motion for Summary J u d gm en t
. T h e t ri al co u rt gra n t eds u m m ary j u d gm en twi t h o u t s t at i n g t h e b as i s fo r i t s ru l i n g. A p p e l l an t ’ s p e t i t i o na s s e rt e d c l a i m s o f f r a u d , c o n v e r s i o n , n e g l i g e n c e , b r e a c ho f c o n t r a c t , an d

u s u r y. Appellee ’s No-Evide nce Summary J udg ment Motion specific ally asser ts that there was no e vidence
on eac h element of

ever y cause of action. On the fra ud claim, the Appellee asser ted that there was
no e vid e nc e that App e lle e ma de a fa lse mate ri a l mis re pr e se ntatio n, that th e Ap pe lle e ma de a fa lserep r e s e n tati o nw h e nth e A p p e ll e e kn e w th e r e p r e s e n tati o nw a s f a ls e o r ma d e th e r e p r e s entation
rec klessly as a positive a ssertion and without knowle dg e of its truth, that the false re prese ntation was made with the intent that Appe llant act on it, that Appell an t re l i ed on the fa lse materia l repr esentation made or that the fra udulent repr esentation c aused damag e or injury to Appellant. On the neg l i gen ce cl aim, the Appellee asser ted that there was no e vidence to show that it breac hed a duty to plaintiff or that it proxi mately cause d any injury or dama g es. On the c onversion cla im, the Ap pe lle e a sse rt e d th a t th e re wa s n o e vid e nc e that App e lla nt o wn e d, po sse sse d, or

ha d th e ri ght to im m ed i at e possession of prope rty , or that the prope rty was pe rsonal prope rty . On the bre ach of contra ct claim, Appe llee asse rted that ther e wa s no evidenc e of a valid, enfor cea

ble contra ct betwe en t h e A p p e l l an t an d A p p e l l e e , o f a b r e a c h o f t h a t c o n t r a c t , o r t h a tt h e Ap p e l l an ts u f

f e r e d an y i n j u r y. On t he usury claim, t he Appellee asserted that there was no e vidence that Appellee took, rec eived,
rese rved, or

char g ed a r ate of

interest g reater than is allowe d by 12 U.S.C. § 85, or that the Appe llee kn ow ing ly

too k, re c e ive d, re se rv e d, or c ha rg e d a rate of int e re st g re a te r tha n is allo we d by

12 U. S.C. § 85. I n response to the No-Evidenc e Motion, the Appellant had the burden to produce more than
a sc int ill a of pr ob a tiv e e vid e nc e to r a ise a g e nu ine iss ue of

mate ri a l f a c t on e a c h e le me nt s pe c if

ic a lly challe n gedi nt h e N o -E v i d en ce M o t i o n . T h e A p p el l an t ’s R es p o n s e t o t h e N o -E v i d enceMotion states that the Appellee was incor rec t that there is no evide nce a nd ref ers to the plaintiff’ s aff

idavit. The Appellant’s r esponse doe s n o t specifica lly addre ss eac h element c halleng ed as is re quired by T EX .R.C IV .P. 166a(i). B eca use the Appe llant failed to raise a fa ct issue on ea ch ele ment of ea ch
cause of action by producing more than a scinti lla of probative evidenc e, the Appellant did not car ry his burden of ove rcomingthe no-e vidence summary judgme nt at trial. Martinez , 218 S.W .3d at 848. On appe al the Appe llant was re quired to challeng e both the t raditional and the no-e videnceg rounds upon which th e s u m m ar y judgme nt could have be en g rante d; however , he does not
c ha lle ng e the g ra

nti ngof the no -e vid e nc e summa

ry jud g me nt. B e c a

us e the Ap pe lla

nt h a s f a ile d to
ra ise a c ha lle ng e to t

he g ra nti ngof the summa

ry jud g me nt on no -evide nc e g ro un ds , th is i ssu e is waived on a

ppeal, a nd we m u s t af

firm the summary

judgme nt on those g rounds. Se e Car r , 776 S.W .2d at 569. B eca

use we aff

irm the trial cour

t’s ruling , we f

ind it unnecessar

y to discuss the statut e of lim itatio ns argume nts ra ise d in the Tr a dit ion a l Mo tio n f

or Sum mary

Judg me nt. III . C ON CL USI ON We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

GUADA LUPE RI VERA, J ustice May 13, 2009 B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.