B e c a u s e o f t h e p a rt i e s ’ c o mm o n s u r n a me , w e w i l l re fe r t o a l l me mb e rs o f the 1 Urbanczy k fam ily

bytheir gi v en n am es.

NO. 07-07 -007 5-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D JAN UA RY

28, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ DELMER URBANCZY K, APP ELL ANT

v. MA RV IN U RB AN CZ Y K, J AN ET UR BAN CZY K, A PPELLE ES

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF CA RS ON COU NT Y; TH NO. 985 3; HON. DAVID M. MCC OY, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ.
OPIN ION
In th is w ill cont est case , Delme r Ur ban cz y k conte nds h is moth er, Isab el Urbanczy k, lac ked tes tamentar

y ca paci ty i n Apr il 2003 w hen s he ex ecut ed a w il l o r th e will w as the
re sul t of the undue i nfluenc e, du re ss , or fraud of h is brother

M ar v in Ur banczy k a nd Ma rv in ’s w ife J anet Ur banczy k. D elmer al so sued Ma rv in and J anet for to rt iou s 12

int er ferenc e w it h inher it ance r ig hts and all eg ed Mar v in and J anet breache d fiduc iar y duti es ow ed Is abel

. Fi nal ly , Del mer soug ht admis si on to probate of a w il l made by Is abel i n M ay 200 0. Delme r appe als a judgme nt a d m it ting the 20 03 wi ll to proba te, a ppo inting Marv in
ex ecut or of Isa bel ’s probate est ate, and den y ing al l cl aims of D elmer ag ain st Ma rv in and Janet

. Fi ndi ng no e rror by the tr ial co urt, w e aff ir m it s j udg ment.

Back g ro und
Isa bel di ed Apr il 10, 2006, and on Apr il 12 Mar v in filed an a ppl ic ati on to probate the 2003 w il l. D elmer

fil ed a cont estand th e r ela ted c auses of act ion ag ain st Ma rv in and Janet , and appl ied for probate of t he 2000 w il l, on Apr il 24. On Septem b e r 25 , t h e tri al
cour t s ig ned an order

auth o riz ing w it hdraw al of Del mer’ s a ttor ney s from represent ati on. T he n e xtday M arv in and Jane t f iled traditio nal an d no -ev iden ce mo tions for sum ma ry judgme nt. By the ir trad itiona l m otion , Marv in and Ja neta rg ued their evi den ce con clusiv ely esta blished Isabe l’s testam ent arycapa city t o ma ke the 2 003 wil l a nd by the ir no-ev iden ce moti on th ey

ch all eng ed th e remaind er of Del mer’ s c lai ms. The cour t set a heari ng of the
su m m a ry ju d gm e n t mo ti o n s fo r No vem b e r 27 . A ct in g pr o s e Del mer filed tw o doc uments dated Oct ober

12 a nd a ple adi ng deno minat ed “ obj ect ion to summar y j udg ment” date d Nov ember

24, each arg u in g t h e c a se w as abated pendi ng the outc ome of matters i n a relate d case. No order abat ing or oth erw ise suspe ndin g prose cution of the case app ears in the record. Und er

a facs imi le cov er

sh eet d ated Nov ember 24, Del mer submitte d
v ar i o u s c a s e - r e l a t e d d o c u me n t s . Th e a s s o rt me n t d i d n o t i n c l u d e a s u mm a r y j udg ment respo nse, af

f idavit, req uestfor untim ely f iling, or mo tion for contin uan ce of the sum ma ry jud g ment hea ri ng . The cour t hea rd the m oti ons for s ummary j udg ment of M ar

v in and3

Janeton N ov ember

27 a nd g ra nted both moti ons by order si g ned De ce m b e r 8. On Dec ember

28, an at tor ney entered the cas e for Del mer and filed a moti on for new tr ial on Janu ary4, 200 7. T he court hea rd Ma rv in’s a pplicat ion to prob ate t he 200 3 w ill on Ja nua ry 8, an d on that date si g ned an o rd e r a d m itti ng the 2003 w il l to probate and app oin ti ng Marv in inde pen den t executor of Isabe l’s probate estat e. Delme r f il ed a “supplem ent al”
mo tion for new trial on Jan uary 18 w hich th e cou rt denie d by order o f Februa ry

26. Also on F ebr u a ry

26, 2007, the c our

t s ig ned an order

enti tl ed “ Fi nal Order” w hic h address ed both admis si on of the 2003 w il l to proba te and the final di spos it ion of Del mer’ s c lai ms for d a ma g e s a n d re l i e f.
Iss ues Delme r raises two issues. First , h e a s s a ils the trial court’s grantof summ ary judgme nt in favor of Marvi n an d Jan et on their tradition al and no-evidence mot ions. Seco nd, he argues the trial court abu sed its discretio n by failing to granthim a ne w trial.
Di sc uss ion
Beca use Del mer’ s f irs t is sue chal len g es the g ra nt of s ummary j udg ment, our re sol uti on of the is sue re q uires that w e i nit ial ly co nsi der

the effectof

the Janua ry

8, 2007 hear ing

. Acc ordin g to the t ri al cour t’ s o rd er of Dec ember

8 i ts deci si on on the mot ion s for
summar y j udg ment of

Mar v in and Janet w as “i nter loc ator y pending the final hear ing on t he probate it sel f.” By

order of Dec ember

18, the c our

t s et t he probate hear ing for J anuar y 8. The hear ing w as tr ied to the c our t. In it s resul ti ng order , t he c our t s tated thatat the h ear ingTesti mony tak en atthe hear ing on an appli cat ion for probate of

a w il l is co mmitt ed 2 to w riting and subscribed and sw orn to in op en co urt. But if the case is con teste d the court maydi spens e w it h thi s re q uirement on the ag re ement of t he par ti es or in the a bsenc e of an a greem enton its ow n mo tion. T ex. Prob

. Code A nn. § 8 7 (Verno n 20 03). T he reco rd here c ontai ns no s ubsc ri bed t est imony from th e J a n u a ry 8 probate hear ing , butnei ther does itco ntai n a repor

ter ’s record of tes ti mony .

4 it hea rd evi den ce and conside red the 200 3 w ill and oth er unsp ecif ied do cum ent s on f ile 2 in t h e c a s e . T h e o rd e r a l s o c o n t a i n e d fi n d i n g s o f fa c ta n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w t h a t , inter ali a, the 2003 will wa s e x ecut ed w it h the formal it ies and sol emnit ies and under the ci rc umstan ces req uired bylaw to make i t a v ali d w il l, Is abel w as of sound mind, the 2003
w il l w as not rev oked by Isa bel , and Ma rv in w as q ual ified and not dis q ual ified to ser v e as inde pen den t executor. T he order adm itted the 200 3 w ill to probate and app ointe d Marv in ind ependentex ecut or w it hout bond. Nei ther si de req uest ed th e c our t ex press findi ng s o f fact and conc lus ion s o f law i n a d ocumentse parate from the order admitti ng w il l to probate. See Tex . R . C iv . P. 299a. And ne it her si de c omplai ns of the form o f order

. The appel lat e re c o rd d o e s n o tin c lu d e a re p o rt e r’ s re c o rd o f t h e h e a ri n g. Un d e r s u c h ci rc u m s t a n c e s we presu me suf

f icient ev iden ce w as introd uced at the hea ring to suppo rt the t ri a l c o u rt ’s findi ng s o f factand jud g ment. Nel ki n v. Pan zer

, 833 S. W .2d 2 67, 2 68 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1st Dist.] 19 92, w rit dism’d w .o.j.) ( citi ng M ays v. Pi er ce, 154 Tex. 487, 493, 281 S.W .2d 79, 8 2 ( 1955) ).
Presumi ng the tr ial co urt found al l facts neces sar y to suppo rtits ju dg ment means it impl ic it ly made findi ng s adv erse to Del mer. See Nac ol v. Metal lic D evel opm ent C or

p., 614 S .W .2d 1 72 , 17 5 ( Tex .C i v .A pp .– F or t W or th 1 98 0, w r i t di s m’ d w .o .j .) ( w he n only findi ng s o f factare before appell ate cour t it pre sumes the ev ide nce suppo rt ed notonl y theThe burden of proof w as on M ar v in to es tabl is h t h e testament ar y ca paci ty

of 3 Isa bel

. See S eigler

v. Si egler , 391 S. W .2d 403, 40 4 ( Tex . 196 5) ; Guthr ie v. Suiter

, 934 S.W .2d 8 20, 8 29 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 6, no w ri t) ( burden of prov ing tes tamentar

y capac ity is on w il l proponent ). The sel f-prov ing aff ida v it ac company ing Isab el’s 200 3 w ill prima facie est ablishe d Isab el’s testa me nta ry capa city , butthe wi ll re mained su bje ct to c ontes t. Guth rie , 9 3 4 S

. W

. 2 d a t 8 2 9 ; Te x . P ro b

. Cod e Ann. § 59 (V er non 200 3)

. As conte stan t, see king to av oid ad mission of the wi ll to proba te, p roof of these 4 the ories lay w ith Delme r. For examp le, to establish undu e inf luen ce the conte stan t mu st prov e: ( 1) the ex is tenc e and ex erti on of an influenc e; (2) the effect iv e operat ion of suc h an inf luen ce tha t the mind of the te stato r is subverted or ov erpo w ered at the time o f the wi ll’s ex ecut ion ; and ( 3) the ex ecut ion of a w il l w hic h the tes tator w oul d nothav e ex ecut ed but for th at i nfluenc e. Rot

her m el v. Dun can, 369 S. W .2d 9 17, 9 22 ( Tex . 196 3)

. A p erson is di sq ual ified to ser v e as an e x ecut or

i f he is : ( a) an i ncapa ci tated 5 person; ( b) a c onv ic ted fel on . . . ; (c ) a non- re si dent

. . . w ho has not appoi nted a resi dent agent t o ac c ep t s er

v i c e of proc es s . . . ; ( d) a c or po rat i on no t au th or i z ed to act as a fiduci ar y i n thi s s tate; or

( e) a pe rs on w hom the cour t finds uns uit abl e. Tex

. Pr o b. C ode Ann . § 78 (Ve rnon 200 3).

5 ex press findi ng s o f the tr ial co urt b u t a lso a ny omi tted findi ng s n eces sar y to suppo rtthe jud g ment) ; Swack

er v. Je t C onst. & Rea lt y C o., Inc ., 535 S. W .2d 7 15, 7 16 (Tex .C iv .App. –Eas tl and 197 6, w ri t ref’d n. r. e.)

. Thus t he c our t ex press ly

or i mpli ci tl y found Isa bel pos ses sed tes tamentar y ca paci ty to ex ecut e the 2003 w il l, the 2003 w il l w as not 3 procu red thro ugh the und ue inf luen ce, dure ss, or f raud of Marv in and Jane t, and Marv in 4
w as qualif ied an d no t disqualif ied f rom a ppo intm entas indep end entex ecut or. 5
Delme r’s first issue prese nts th e con ten tion Marvi n an d Jane t did no t conclu siv ely
e s t a b l i s h t h e i r

e n t i t l e m e n tt o s u m m a r

y j u d g m e n t a n d t h e t r i a l c o u rte r re d b y g ra n t i n g i t

. W e ov er ru le the iss u e. Fol low ing the Dec ember 8 order , t he ta ki ng of ev ide nce and deter minat ion of is sues nec ess ar y for t he admi ss ion of Isa bel ’s w il l re mained for the6

Ja n u a ry 8 p ro b a te he a rin g. T h e re fo re , e ven as su m in g ar guendoa q uest ion of mater ial fact ex is ted o n iss ues of Isabel ’s tes tamentar y ca paci ty , or

on t he al leg ed undu e i nfluenc e, duress and fraud of M ar v in and J anet, anyer ro neous dec is ion by the tr ial co urt on the
summar y j udg ment moti ons w as re ndered har mles s by the Janua ry

8 ev ide nti ar

y hear ing admit ti ng the 2003 w il l to proba te. On thi s matter , the dec is ion i n Pr ogr ess iv e C ounty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boyd , 177 S.W .3d 9 19 ( Tex . 200 5) ( per cu ri am), i s i nst ruct ive. T h e re the pla int iff sued hi s i nsurer on c ontract ual and extra- cont ra ctu al theor ies ar is ing from i t s deni al of cov erag e under his motor v ehi cl e pol icy

foll ow ing an a cc ide nt. Id

. at 920. T he trial court
re ndered s ummary

j udg ment in fav or

of the ins urer

on the e xtra- cont ra ctu al cl aims des pit e the p lai nti f

f’s e x cept ion and obj ect ion thatthe moti on for summar y j udg ment w as conc lus or

y and did not address the ele ments of his co nv ersi on c lai m. Id. at 920, 921. The cont ra ct theor

y w as tr ied by

j ur y . Id. at 920. Thereafter the c our t rendered a tak e- nothi ng jud g ment for the i nsurer bas ed on a jur

y findi ng that ex cl uded the acc ide nt fro m cov erag e. Id. The c our

t of appeal s a ff ir med the cont ra ct cl aim but rev ersed the s ummary j udg ment on th e extra- cont ra ctu al theor ies noti ng in par t t hat s ummary

j udg ment c annot be affirmed on ground s not raised in the trial court an d the plaintif f ’s statu t o ry the ories w ere w rongly address ed by

the ins urer ’s moti on for summar y j udg ment. Id. at 920- 21. In render ing jud g ment t hat t he pl ain ti ff take nothi ng , the Tex as Supreme C our t det er mined “e v en i f the tr ial co urt e rre d b y

g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment on the b ad- faith a nd extra c ontract ual cl aims , t he er ro r w as har mles s b ecaus e the j ur y findin g i n the cont ra ct cas e neg ated coverage . . . .” Id . at92.7

Th e p r i n c i p l e o f Pr

ogr ess iv e that “a tr ial co urt’ s e rroneous dec is ion to g ra nt
summar y j udg ment c an be re ndered har mles s b y su bseq uent ev ents i n the tr ial co urt,” has appl ic ati on i n the ca se at ba r. See i d. at 92 1; Mc

Alester Fuel Co. v. Sm it h Int ’ l, Inc ., 257 S.W .3d 732, 738 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1st Di st. ] 2007, pet. denied ). To re ach it s orde r on the p ro bate hear ing the tr ial courtco nsi dered ev ide nce and found i n M ar v in’ s fav or

on t he ele ments re q uired for admis si on of the 2003 w il l to probate and hi s a p p o int ment as ex ecut or . These find ing s n eg ated the cl aims of Del mer in his co ntes t of the 2003 w il l and his ch all eng e of M ar

v in as ex ecut or . Thus, ev en i f the c ourt e rre d i n i ts deter minat ion s ex press ed in the Dec ember 8 order it s er ro r w as made har mles s by the ou tc o m e of the Ja n u a ry 8 h e a rin g. Delme r’s cl aim thatMarv in and Jane t breach ed f iduciary duties o w ed to Isabe l arose from Ja net’ s e x ecut ion of a w ar ra nty deed in 2004, pursuantto a pow er of attor ney from Is a b e l, co n veyin g to Marvin I sa b e l’s in te re stin la n d i n C a rso n C o u n ty. De lm e r’s pl e a d in gs als o s oug ht de cl arator

y reli ef w it h respect t o the proper ty conv ey ed by

the w ar ra nty

deed. Admis si on of the 2003 w il l to probate als o rendered har mles s a ny er ro r in th e grant of
sum ma ry

ju dgme nt on the se claims beca use tha t w ill did no t devise Delmer an y interest in the d is puted proper

ty

. Delme r also a lleged Marv i n an d J an ett or ti ou s l y i nt er fered w i th his inhe ritance ri g hts

. Ev en i f w e as sume ar guendo th at th e J an ua r y 8 he ar i ng di d no t ad j ud i cate this the oryw e f ind it w a s r esolved against Delm er by the order on su mm aryjudgmen t w hich the c our t i ncor porated int o i ts final order of Febr uar

y 26, 2007.Th e sum ma ry ju dgme nt mo tion of

Marvin an d Jan et also asserted thatthe claim 6 failed a s a ma tter of

law beca use the Texas Sup reme Court has no t recogniz ed a cause o f a c t i o n fo r

t o rt i o u s i n t e r

fe r e n c e w i t h i n h e r i t a n c e r i g h t s . D i s p o s i t i o n o f t h i s a p p e a l d o es not req uire us to cons ide r w hether su ch a caus e of acti on ex is ts in Tex as, and w e do not cons ide r thatques ti on. Del mer ci tes our opi nio n i n Nor dyk e v . Nor dyk e, No. 07- 96- 406- CV , 199 8 W L 4508 (T e x.A p p .– Amar il lo, Ja nuar y 7, 1998, pet. deni ed) ( mem. op.) as re cog niz ing a c ause of acti on for tor ti ous int er

ferenc e w it h i nher it ance ri g hts

. As our opi nio n made c lea r, the ex is tenc e of the caus e of act ion w as not a ddress ed, b ut on ly the appel lan t’ s c ontent ion thatl imi tati ons bar re d i ts ass erti on. Id . at*3 n.1. 8 An o -e vid e n c e su m m a ry ju d gm e n t is e s s e n t ia ll y a p re t ri a l d ir e c t e d ve rd ic ta n d we appl y the same leg al suffici ency standard i n rev iew ing a no -e v ide nce summar y j udg ment as w e appl y

i n rev iew ing a di re cte d v erdict. See R oth v . F FP Oper ati ng Par tner s, L.P. , 994 S.W .2d 1 90, 1 95 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1999, pet. deni ed)

. W e rev iew the ev ide nce in the li g ht mos t fav orabl e to the re spond ent ag ain st w hom the no- ev ide nce summar y j udg ment
w as re ndered, dis re g ardin g all co ntrar y ev ide nce and i nferenc es. Me rr ell Dow Phar

m s., Inc . v . Havner , 953 S.W .2d 706, 711 (Te x. 19 9 7) ; Rot h, 994 S. W .2d a t 195

. A noev ide nce summar

y j udg ment i s i mprop er ly g ra nted if the non- mov ant p re sent s more tha n a s ci ntilla o f

p ro b a tiv e ev ide nce to rais e a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact. Rot h, 994 S.W .2d a t 195

. How ev er , a no- ev ide nce moti on for summar y j udg ment mus t be g ra nted if the par

ty oppos ing the moti on does not respon d w it h c ompetentsu mmary j udg ment ev ide nce that ra is es a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact. Dolcef inov. R andol

ph, 19 S. W .3d 906 , 916 (Tex.App .–Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 0, pe t. de nied ).
In t hei r no- ev ide nce m o ti on for summar y j udg ment, Ma rv in and J anet chal len g ed the dam age elem entof Delmer’s the oryof

tortious int erferen ce w ith inhe ritance rig hts. 6 In King v . Acker , 7 2 5 S

. W

. 2 d 7 5 0 , 7 5 4 ( Te x . A p p . – H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t

. ] 1 9 8 7 , n o w r i t ) , the
cour t ci ted the Res tatement of Tor ts: “O ne w ho by fraud, duress or othe r tor

ti ous means9

int enti onal ly

prev ents another

f ro m re cei v ing f ro m a thi rd person an i nher it ance or g ift t hat he w o u l d o t h e r

w i s e h a v e r e c e i v e d i s s u bj e c t t o l i a b i l i t y t o t h e o t h e r fo r l o s s of the inh er it ance or

gi ft.” R est atement (S econd ) of Torts , § 774B ( 1979)

. Und er thatdefini ti on of the c ause of acti on, i t w as for Del mer to pres ent in res ponse to the no-e v ide nce moti on more than a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce prov ing w hat i nher ita n ce o r g ift he did not re cei v e from Isa bel be caus e of the all eg ed to rt iou s c onduc t of M ar v in and J anet. Bu t D elmer offered
no summar

y jud g ment ev ide nce of an y damag es. Ass uming , arg uendo, Tex as re cog niz es the c ause of acti on, j udg ment w as proper i n any e v ent a g ain st Del mer on hi s c lai m of tor ti ous int er

ferenc e w it h i nher it ance. For thes e reason s, w e ov er ru le Del mer’ s first is sue. In hi s sec ond iss ue, Del mer compl ain s that the tri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on by deny ing hi s mot ion for n ew tr ial of the s ummary

j udg ment moti ons because h e m et t he Craddo ck

req uirements for

a new tri al foll ow ing rendi ti on of a defaul t j udg ment. Craddo ck
v. Suns hin e Bus

Li nes, 134 Tex . 388 , 133 S.W .2d 1 24 ( Tex . 193 9)

. In Craddo ck, the Supreme C our t of Tex as hel d a d efault jud g ment s houl d be set asi de i f the defendant est abl is hes by i ts moti on for new tr ial that: (1 ) the fai lure to answ er before judgm entw as no t inten tiona l or the result of conscio us indif feren ce, but the result of an acc ide nt or mis tak e; (2 ) the moti on for new tr ial set s up a meri tor iou s d efense; a nd (3 ) g ra nti ng the moti on w il l occ asi on no undue d ela y or other w is e inj ure the p lai nti ff

. Id. at 126. The C our

t has ex pla ine d i ts “p ur pose in a d o p ting the Craddo ck st andard w as to all ev iat e undul y

harsh and unj ustresul ts at a poi nt in ti me w hen t he defaul ti ng par ty has10

no othe r rem edy av ailable .” C ar penter v. Cim ar ro n H ydr ocar bons Cor p., 98 S. W .3d 6 82, 686 (Tex. 2002 ).
At i ss ue i n Car

penter w as w hether

the Craddo ck

st andard for g ra nti ng a new tr ial appl ied foll ow ing entry

of a s ummary

j udg ment on a moti on of w hic h the non- mov ant h ad noti ce and t he oppo rt uni ty to employ

any means of t he ru les of c iv il procedu re for al ter ing the s ummary

j udg ment dea dli nes. I n Car penter , t he tr ial co urt denied a motion for new tr ial filed after

a g ra nt of s ummary

j udg ment, but t h e c o u rtof appeal s a ppl ied the Craddo ck sta ndard and re v ersed the summar y jud g ment. Car

penter , 98 S.W .3d at 685. D is ag re ein g w it h the co urt of appeal s, the Tex as Supreme Cou rt hel d that “ Craddo ck doe s not ap ply to a moti on for new

tr ial filed after summar y j udg ment i s g ra nted on a moti on to w hic h the
non- mov ant fai led to t imel y respon d w hen t he respon dent had not ic e of the hear ing and an oppor tuni ty to empl oy

the means our

ci v il procedu re r ule s mak e av ail abl e to alt er the dea dlines Rule 166 a imp oses. ” Id. at 683- 84. Beca use Ci marron had the o ppor tuni ty to seek leav e to file an u nti mely respon se and mov e for a c onti nuanc e, t he C our t c oncl uded the Craddo ck

st andard w as not a ppl ic abl e. Id. at 686.
Ma rv in and J anet ser

v ed D elmer

by ce rt ified mai l with a c o py of thei r moti ons for
summar y judgmenton S eptember 26, 2006. The record c ontai ns tw o c ommunic ati ons from D elmer

to the tr ial courtdated October 12, 2006. In the first document , D elmer st ated that the a ttor ney

for I sabel ’s temporar

y g uardia n not ified hi m the ins tant cas e w as “o n hol d” unti l compl eti on of ar bit ra ti on i n a rela ted c ase. I n the se cond communi cat ion , Del mer represe nte d he w as informe d by the atto rney for Isab el’s g uard ian th at th e guardian ship11

proce e d in g w as “o n hol d” unti l re sol uti on of the ins tant cas e and a rela ted c ase. The docu me nt en ded w ith the reques t , “ W e a s ka nd p rayfor all to do th e rig ht th ings i n re sol v ing al l thes e matt ers.” The t ri al cour t’ s o rd er se tti ng h e a rin g o f

the moti ons for
summar y judg ment w as si g ned Se ptember 27, 2006, and app arentl y se rv ed on Del mer by
cer ti fied mai l on October

13. D elmer

does not dis pute re cei pt of not ic e of the hear ing

. In a doc ument dated Nov ember 24 and beari ng the ti tl e “ Obj ect ion to Summary Ju dg ment,” Del mer arg ued t hat a cc ordin g to a pr ior order “al l matters” w ere s uspen ded unt il resol uti on of the con teste d ma tters an d app ointm ent of a perm ane nt admin istrator.” T he court hea rd
arg ument of the moti ons for s ummary j udg ment on Nov ember 27 a nd s ig ned an order on De ce m b e r 8 gra n ti n g th e m o ti o n s. Fo llo wing Ca rp enter, w e find the Craddo ck stand ard ina ppl ic abl e to the d eter minat ion of Del mer’ s mot ion for new tr ial

. Del mer had s uff ic ien t noti ce of the s ummary jud g ment hear ing and ample ti me to re spond or seek a c onti nuanc e. And he di d respon d, al bei t i n an improper manner . W e n e ve rt h e le ss conside r the trial court’s ruling on Delm er’s mot ion for new trial. A tr ial co urt pos ses ses broad di sc re ti on i n ru li ng on a moti on for new tr ial and an appe ll ate cour t rev iews t he deni al of a moti on for new tr ial for a n abus e of di sc re ti on. Cliff v. Huggin s, 724 S.W .2d 778 , 778 -79 (Te x . 198 7). A trial court ab uses its discretio n w hen it act s w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing r ule s o r pr inc iples , n o t w hen i t ex er ci ses that d is creti on i n a mann er di ff erent t han a re v iew ing appel lat e c our t mi g ht. D owne r v. Aquam ar

ine Operator

s, Inc ., 701 S.W .2d 238, 241- 42 (Tex

. 1985)

. Und er the s tandard by
w hic h w e mustrev iew

the tr ial court ’s dec is ion , w e c annot say i t abu sed it s d is creti on by den y ing D elm er a new tr ial.12

W e ov er ru le Del mer’ s s econd i ss ue. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led D elmer ’s tw o appel lat e is sues , w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial
cour t.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice

Pi rt le, J. , c oncurs i n the resul t.