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

NO. 03-0 7 -00 286 -CV

P hill ic ia C . Le e , A ppe lla nt

v. Unif und CCR P artner s as Assignee of T exas Tech University , Appellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C-1- CV-06 -00 2423 , HO NORAB LE J. DAVID P HI LLIP S , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap p e ll an t P h il li c ia

C. L e e a p p e a ls th e c o un ty

c o urt’ s g r an t o f

s u mm ar y ju d g me nt ag ainst her, ba sed in part on de emed a dmissions , arguing that summary judgme n t was improper be c a us e the re we re dis pute d is su e s o f m a te ri a l f a c t. We a ff

ir m th e c ounty

c ourt ’s jud g me nt. On April 13 , 2 0 0 6 , appellee , Unifund CCR P artne rs as Assig nee of Texas Tech University (Unifund) , broug ht suit ag ainst L ee on unpaid cre dit card de bt. I ncorpor ated in Unifund’ s petition, which was e ntitled Pl aintiff’s Or igina l Petiti on, R equest for Disclosures a

nd Request for Admissions, were r equests for admissions. L ee f iled her g ener al denial on Ma y 23, 2006, but neither responde d nor objec ted to the discover y reque sts. On J anuar

y 22, 2007, Unifund filed its mot ion for summary judgme nt based on deeme d admissions and the aff idavit of Ange la Frec kman, a Unifund repr esen tative. Afte r hea ringthe motion on March 29, 2007, the c ounty court g rante d the motion and ente red judg ment in favor of Unifund on April 5, 2007.2 I n thre e iss ue s, L e e argue s that U nif un d’ s r e qu e sts fo r a dmi ssi on s w e re imp ro pe rl y
serve d and, thus, could no t s u p p o rt Unifund’s motion for summary judgme nt. I n addition, L ee argues that, eve n if the re quests for a dmissions wer e prope rly serve d, L ee’ s gen er al and ve rified denials amounted to a

denial of Unifund’s re quests. Finally , beca use summary

judgme nt was improper, L ee a

rgues, the c ounty

court’s a war d of attorne y s’ fe es should also be re verse d. We review the county court’s summary judgme nt de novo. ValenceOperating Co.
v . D or se tt , 164 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 (Tex. 2003). Summary judgme nt is proper when there are no disputed issues of mater ial fac t and the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of la w. Tex. R. C iv. P. 166a(c). Whe n re vie wi ng a summa ry jud g me nt, we take a s tr ue a ll e vid e nc e fa

vo ra ble to t he n on -m ov ant, and we indulge ever

y rea sonable infe renc e and r esolve a ny doubts in the no n -m ovant’s fa vor. ValenceOperating Co. , 1 64 S.W. 3d a t 66 1; Kno tt , 128 S.W .3d at 215. Texas Rule of Civil Procedur e 198 g overns the f orm and c ontent of re q u es t s for admissions. See T ex . R . Civ. P . 198. L ee c omplains of the form in which the reque sts for admiss i ons were serve d—she see ms to concede that servingthe re quests simult aneously with the petition was permissible, but argues that including the reque sts in a single document with the petition
was impermissible. L ee, howeve r, raised no objection to the form of Unifund’s re quests befor e the county court, a s require d by

the rules of

civil proce dure. Th e ru le s r e qu ir e a

pa rt y to make c omp le te re sp on se s to wr itt e n d isc ov e ry re qu e sts : A par ty m u s t respond to wr itten discovery in writing w ithin the tim e provide d by court orde r or these rules. When re sponding to wr itten discovery , a par ty must make a complete response , based on a ll information rea sonably available to the responding party or its attorney

at t h e t i m e t h e response is made. The r esponding party ’sHaving found that L ee waived her objection to Unifund’s reque sts f or admissions, we nee d 1 n o t d e te r mi n e , a s L e e c o n te n d s , w h e th e r “ I mb e d d in g Re qu e s ts f o r A dmi s s io n s in

a Petition Violate[s] Texas Rules of Civil Procedur e.” 3 answe rs, objections, and othe r re sponses must be prece ded by the re quest to which th e y a p p l y.
Id. 1 9 3
. 1
. I f ap arty

i s as s ert i n g an o b

j ec t i o nan d

re fu s i n g t o re s p o n d , h e m u s t d o s o i nwr i t i n g:
For m and time for objec tions. A party must make any

objection to written discover y in writing - either in the r espons e o r i n a s ep arate document - within the time for response . The pa

rty must state specifically

the leg al or fa ctual basis for the objection and the e xtent to wh ic h th e pa rt y is r e fu sin g to c omp ly

wi th t he re qu e st.
Id. 193.2(a) . I f the pa

rty fails to object, he w aives his objection: Waiver of objec tion. An objection that is not made within the time require d, or that is obsc ured by numerous unfounded objections, is w aived unless the court e x cuses the waive r for

g ood cause shown.
Id. 193.2(e)
L ee’ s argument rests on her asser tion that Unifund’s reque sts for ad m i s sions were imp ro pe rl y

se rv e d a s p art

of Un if un d’ s pe tit ion
. L e e , ho we ve r, ne ve r o bje c te d to Un if un d’ s r e qu e sts for a d m i s s i o n s and neve r soug ht a ruling on such an obje ction. She simply failed to re spond. Unde r s u ch circ umstances, L ee’ s complaint is waived. See id. Ac c or din g ly , U nif un d’ s r e qu e sts for a dmissions wer e pr o perly deeme d admitted, see id. 19 8. 29 (c ), and we ov e rr

ule L ee’ s first point of err or. 14 L e e ne xt co nte nd s th a t, even if Un if un d’ s r e qu e sts fo r a dmi ssi on s w e re pr op e rl y
se rv e d, L e e ’s g e ne ra l de nia l ha d th e e ff e c t of de nyinge a c h o f t

he a dmi ssi on s in

Un if un d’ s r e qu e sts
. Whil e L ee is c orre ct in her a ssertion that “[a] ge nera l denial puts at issue eve ry thing in the plaintiff’ s p et i t i o n t h at is not require d to be denied unde r oath or spe cifica lly denied,” s e e S

h e ll Ch e m . Co. v. Lamb , 4 93 S.W. 2d

74 2, 74 4 (T e x. 19 73 ), L e e c ann ot re ly on su c h de nia l a s a fo rm of re sp on se to
wr itt e n d isc ov e ry

re qu e sts . Sp e c if

ic a lly , w he n r e sp on din g to r e qu e sts fo r ad mis sio ns , a p art

y mus t: specific ally

admit or deny

the re quest or explain in detail the rea sons that the respondingparty

cannot a dmit or deny

the re quest. A re sponse must fairly meet the s u b s t an c e o f th e r e qu e s t
. T h e r e s p o n d i n g p arty m ay qu a l i f y an an s w e r , o r d e n y a re qu e st i n p art , o nly

wh e n g oo d fa ithre qu ir e s. L a c k o f i nf or matio n o r k

no wl e dg e is not a prope r re sponse unless the re sponding party states that a r easona ble inquiry

was made but that the infor

mation known or ea sily obtainable is insuff icient to e nable the respondingparty

to admit or deny
. An assertion that the request prese nts an issue for trial is not a proper

response . Te x. R. Civ
. P. 19 8. 2( b)
. Ev e n if the su bje c t of a re qu e st ha s b e e n p ut “ in i ssu e ” by a g e ne ra l de nia l, that issue can—a

nd must—later be de termined in favor of one party or anothe r—whe ther that deter mination be made be fore trial, as her e, t h rough dee med admissions, through a pretria l dis po sit ive mot ion , o r at tr ia l. I f t his we re oth e rw ise , th e me ri ts of a law su it wou ld b e fi na lly deter mined the moment the def endant f iled his ge nera l denial. Reg ardle ss, even if L ee’ s answer put the subject matter of t he requests for admissions “in i ssue,” the ge nera l denial ca nnot and does not constitute a prope r re sponse or objec tion as re q u i re d b y Rule 198.2(b). See id. Acc ording ly , we hold that L ee’ s g ener al and ve rified de nials were insufficient to constitute either objec t i o n s or
re sp o n s e s t o U n i f

un d ’ s r e qu e s t s f

o r a dm i s s i o n s p ur s u an tt o R u l e 1 9 8
. 2 ( b ) , an d

w e o v e rr

ule L ee’ s second point of e rror .5 I n her third point of e rror , L ee c ontends that, bec ause the county court’s grantingof summary judgme nt was im proper , the county court’s a war d of attorne y s’ fe es in favor of Unifund should b e r e v e r s e d
. H av in g o v e r r u le d L e e ’ s f ir s t t w o p o ints o f

e r r o r , c o n c lu d in g th a t Un if u nd’s deeme d admissions wer e competent summary judgme nt evidence and that L ee’ s g ener al denial wa s insufficient to controve rt such evide nce, w e, likewise, ove rrule L ee’ s third point of error
.

Havingfound Unifu

n d ’s re quests for a dmissions to be compete nt summary judgme nt
e vid e nc e , n o d isp ute d is su e of fa c t r e ma ins , a

nd we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he c ounty c ourt
.

__________________________________________ G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Waldrop a nd Henson Affir med Filed: August 15, 2008