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

NO. 03-0 6 -00 434 -CV

Vi nc e ntWr e nc he r , A ppe lla nt

v. Stephan ie Wre ncher , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- F M- 03- 0061 02 , HO NORAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSK Y , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap p el l an t Vi n ce n t W re n c h e r , p ro ce ed i n g pr o s e , bring s this appeal fr om a no evidenc e summary judgme nt grante d in f avor of appellee Stephanie Wrenc her c oncer ning V incent’s mot i o nt o m o d i f

y t h e W r e n c h e r ’ s d i v o r c e d e c r e e i na s u i ta f f e c t i n g th e p ar e n t
- c hil d
re latio ns hip . We a ff

ir m. Vincent Wrenc her a

nd Stephanie Wrenc her wer e divorce d on August 18, 2004, and t h e f i n a l d i v o r c e d e c r e e e n t e r e d b y th e tr i a l c o urtr e f

l e c t e d th e a g r e e m e n t o f

th e p art i e s . In September a

nd November

2004, Vincent filed motions to modify cer tain terms of the divorce decr ee, inc lud ingthe pr ov isi on s fo r c hil d su pp or t and the ri g ht to d e sig nate the pr ima ry re sid e nc e of

the ir child, Vincent Wrenche r, J r. The trial court conducte d hear ings in Septe mber 2 0 0 4 an dJ anuar y 2005 that resulted in the de nial of Vince nt’s motions.

On April 8, 2005, Vincent filed a Petition to Modi fy Parent-Child Relationship that is the subject of this suit. He reque sted, amongo t her thing s, the rig ht to designate the primar y2

re sid e nc e of

the c hil d, mod if

ic a tio n o f t

he joi nt c us tod

y arr ang e me nt, mod if

ic a tio n o f c hil d s up po rt , mod if ic a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d ’ s d ay c ar e ar r an g e m e n t , an d a c h i l d s u p p o rt c r e d i t
. T h e p e t i t i o n a lso included a motion to compel a me ntal examination of St ephanie and a motion t o enter corr ections on the orde r ente red by t h e t ri al co u rt i n J anuar y 2005. A trial on the mer its was set on the jury docket f or F ebrua ry 26, 2006, and Vince nt filed a propose d dispositi on of issues prior to that date

. On Stephanie’ s motion, t he trial wa s continued and r esche duled for Ma y 8, 2006. Vincent did not fi l e ap ro p o s edd i s p o s i t i o no f i s s u es fo r t h e M ay tri al s et t i n g. On M ay 3, the trial judg e re moved the ca se fr om the jury docket a nd schedule d a pre

trial confe renc e for

May 10. The purpose of the c onfer ence was to dete rmine the suff iciency and timeliness of Vincent’s pr oposed disposition of issues for the second trial setting. At the conf ere nce, the jud g e de te rm ine d th a t th e pr op os e d d isp os iti on of iss ue s su bmi tte d b y

Vi nc e nt p ri or

to t he fi rs t trial setting in Febr

uary 2006 could also be use d for a second tria l setting. How ever , he also rule d, in acc ordanc e with an or der pr oposed by Stephanie’s c ounsel, that there was no e v i d en ce of a

m at er i al ch an ge i nt h e c i rc u m s t an ce s o f e i th er p ar e n t o r o f t h e ch i l d

th at wo u l d

j u s t i fy h o l d i n g a he ari ngfo r m od if

ic a tio n. On

May 11 , V inc e nt f

ile d a motio n for ne w tri a l re qu e sti ng the c ourt to void the ruling of the pre -trial conf ere nce a nd “send this ca se to the Jury .” On May 16, J udg e Yelenosky sent a letter to V incent and to Stepha nie’s counsel that pr ov ide d in

re le va nt p art :
T h e p ro p o s edo rd er

p re s en t edb y

[ S t ep h an i e’ s co un s el ] co rr ec t l y s t at es m y

ru l i n g. Upon re flec tion, however , I have concluded that the rulingamounts to gr anting a noevidenc e summary

judgme nt motion when none has bee n filed. Since Mr. Wrenc her has requ e s te d

a ju r y , Ic an n o t r e mo v e a

f a c tu a l d is p u te f

r o m t h e ir c o n s id e ration except upon a prope r motion.Se c tio n 1 56 .1 01 of the Te xas F amil y

Cod e pr ov ide s in

re le va nt p art : 1 The c ourt may modify an order that provides for the appointm ent of a conser vator of a child, that provide s the terms and c o nditions of conservatorship, or that provides fo r t he po sse ssi on

of or a c c e ss t o a

c hil d if mod if ic a tio n w ou ld b e in the be st i nte re st of the c hild and: (1) the c ircumstance s of the child, a c onservator, or other party aff ecte d by the orde r have materially

and substantially

chang ed . . . . Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.101 ( West S upp. 2006). 3 All that was prope rly

befor e me at [ the] pre trial confe renc e was the suf ficienc y and timeliness o f M r . Wr e n c h e r ’ s Pr o p o s e d D is p o s it io n o f I s s u e s . I f o un d th a t the Proposed Disposition filed for the fir st trial setting suff iced. Sin c e Ihave no t si g ne d a

n o rd e r, Mr . Wr e nc he r’ s Mo tio n f or Ne w T ri a l is moo t.
On J une 30, 2006, Stephanie f iled a no evidenc e motion for summary judgme nt alleg ing that “there is no evidence of [m] ater ial and substantial cha ng e in ci rcumstanc es, on which [Vincent] has the burden of proof at trial.” Vincent pr esente d no evidenc e to counter Stephanie’s motion for summary

1 judgme nt, and the trial c ourt g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of

Stephanie. Vincent’ s issues on appea l can be g rouped into the following g ener al issues: that the tr ia l c ourt erred by

(1 ) a dv isi ngSte ph anie to f ile a no e vid e nc e mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt; (2 ) r e nd e ri ngsumma

ry jud g me nt i n f

avo r o f S te ph anie ; and (3 ) rem ov ingthe c a se fr om t he jur y do c ke t. Vincent c ontends that the t rial judg e violated the c ode of judicia l conduct by “g iving advice ” to Stephanie in his May 16 letter. In the l etter, J udg e Yelenosky addre ssed his ruling at the pre- trial confe renc e that Vince nt was not entitled to a modification hea ring and conc luded “the r

u li ng [i n the pre -trial conf

eren ce] amounts to gr anting a no-e vidence summary judgme nt motion when4

no ne ha s b e e n f

ile d. Sin c e Mr . Wr e nc he r h a s r equ est ed a ju ry , I c ann ot r e mov e a

fa c tua l di sp ute from their c onsideration except upon a pr oper motion.” Vinc ent contends that t h i s l et t er advised Stephanie to file a

no evidenc e motion for summary judgme nt and, there fore , violated ca non 4(G) of the c od e of

jud ic ia l c on du c t, whic h p ro hib its ju dg e s f ro m pr a c tic ing

law e xce pt i n c e rt a in situations not implicated here. See Tex. Code J ud. Conduct, Canon 4(G), reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit . G app. B (West 2005).

Our re view of the May

16 letter does not indicate that the trial judge was pra cticing l aw o r gi v i n g l ega l ad v i ce t o S t ep h an i e i nan y wa y . In s t ea d , th e l et t er re fl ec t s th at t h e j u d ge
re c on sid e re d h is r

uli nga t th e pr e -t

ri a l c on fe re nc e to p ro te c t V inc e nt’ s re qu e st fo r a jur y tr ia l. H is statement “ Ic an n o t r e mo v e a f a c tu a l d is p u te f

r o m [ th e ju

r y ’ s ] c o n s id e r a ti o ne xc e p t u p o np r o p er motion” was an a ccur ate state ment of the law , and the letter did not direct either

side to take fur

ther action in the ca se. Thus, we conclude that the trial judg e’s letter to the parti es d i d n o t v i o l ate the
c od e of jud ic ia l c on du c t. Vi nc e nt a lso c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt err e d b y g ra nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt i n favor of S tephanie. Aparty

may move for summar

y judgme nt on the g round that there is “no
e vid e nc e ” of

on e or mor e e sse nti a l ele me nts of a c la im o r d e fe ns e on

wh ic h a n a dv e rs e pa

rt y wo uld h av e th e b u r d e n o f p r oof at trial. Tex. R. C iv. P. 166a(i). The tria l court must gr ant the motion unless the non-movant produce s summary judgme nt e vidence that raises a g enuine issue of materia l fac t. See id. We re vie w the e vid e nc e in the lig ht mos t favo ra ble to the no nmo va

nt, dis re g ard inga ll contra ry evidenc e and inf

ere nces . King Ranc h, Inc. v . Chapman , 118 S.W .3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003). A no evidenc e summary

judgme nt is im proper ly

g rante d if the respondent bring s forth more than a scintilla of probative e vidence to raise a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t. Id. More than a s cintilla of5

evidenc e exists when the evidenc e “r ises to a l ev el that would ena ble re asonable and fa ir-minded people to diffe r in their conc lusions.” Id. (c i t i n g Merre ll Dow Pharms., Inc. v. H avner , 953 S.W .2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997)).

Vincent a sserts that his writ t en re sponse to Stephanie’s no e vidence motion for
sum m ar y judgme nt was ade quate summary judgme nt evidence . We disag ree . Proper summary judgme nt proof consists of admiss ions, aff idavits, stipulations of parties, authenticated or certified public rec ords, deposit i o n t ra nscripts, and interr og atory answe rs. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 166a(c). Pl ea d i n gs al o n e, even if sworn, a re not summary

judgme nt evidence

. Laidlaw W aste Sys., Inc . v. City of W ilmer , 9 04 S.W. 2d 65 6, 66 0 ( Te x. 19 95 ). In th is c a se , a lth ou g h V inc e nt f ile d a re sp on se to S te ph anie ’s no e vid e nc e mot ion fo r sum mary jud g me nt in whi c h he lis te d nume ro us do c ume nts
and re c or ds un de r t

he he a din g “ Sum mary

Judg me nt E vid e nc e ,” he did no t, i n f a c t, atta c h to his response any

of this evidence or direc t the court to whe re it could be found in the re cord. Summary judgme nt proof must be either attache d to the summary judgme nt motion or respon s e, MBank Br e nh am v . B arre ra , 721 S.W .2d 840, 842 (Tex. 1986) , or a notice containingspecific ref ere nces to the materia l to be used is filed and se rved o n al l parties with a statement of intent to use the specifie d materia l as summary judgme nt evidence

. See Tex. R. Civ. P . 166a(c ). I t is not t he cour t’s duty to searc h the re cord f

or evide nce r aising a f

ac t i s s u e. King v. W

ells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 205 S.W .3d 731, 735 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pe t.). Thus, beca use Vince nt did not direct the court to evide nce in the r ecor d raising a g enuine issue of materia l f act, summary

judgme nt in favor of Stephanie w as prope r. See P a u ll v . Ca p it a l R es o u r c e M

g mt ., Inc ., 987 S.W .2d 214, 221 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. denied).

Vi nc e nt a lso c on te nd s th a t S tep ha nie did no t pr e se nt l e g a lly

su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e in6

support of her

motion for summary

judgme nt. Howeve r, under the rules of

civil proce dure, when, as her e, a pa

rty moves for summar

y judgme nt on the g rounds that there is no evidence of one or more essential ele ments of a c laim or defense on which an adver se party would have the burden of proof at trial, the movant doe s not ne ed to produc e any summary judgme nt evidence

. See Te x. R. C iv. P. 166a(i). I nstead, the motion must state the eleme nts as to which there is no evidence

. See id. In th is
case , Stephanie alleg ed in her motion for sum m ar y

judgme nt that “[t] here is no evidence of [m ]aterial and substantial cha ng e in circ umstances, on whic h [Vincent] has t he burden of proof at trial.” She was not, as Vince nt sugg ests, require d by rule 166a (i) to submit evidence in support of her motion. I nstead, the burden was on Vincent to prese nt summary judgme nt evidenc e raising a fac t issue as to whether

there had bee n a mater ial chang e in circ umstances. See id. He did not produce any such evide nce. T hus, the t rial court proper ly enter ed summary judgme nt in favor of

Stephanie. L astly , Vincent c ontends that “re moving the c ase f rom the jury ’s consi d er ati on vio late d [hi s] r ig ht t o a jur y tr ia l on an issu e of

fa c t.” We d isa g re e . T he ri g ht t o a jur y tr ia l in c ivi l
case s is not absolute. Bliss v. NRG Indus ., 16 2 S.W. 3d 43 4, 43 7 (T e x. Ap p. —D a lla s 2005 , p et. de nie d) . T he summa

ry ju dgmen t pr oc e ss p ro vid e s a me tho d o f t e rm inatin g a c a se wh e n o nly questions of law a

re involved a

nd when there are no g enuine issues of f act. Id. Th is p ro c e ss w ill

n o t d e p r iv e li ti g an ts o f a ju r y tr ia l w h e r e mate r ia l qu e s ti o n s o f f a c t e x ist. Id. Howeve r, whe n no
mate ri a l is su e s o f fa c t e xist to su bmi t to a jur

y , th e g ra nti ngof summa ry jud g me nt w ill no t vi olate a par ty ’s constitutional right to a jur y trial. King , 205 S.W .3d at 734. I n this case, if Vincent had produce d summary judgme nt evidence raisinga g enuine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t, t he fa c tua l di sp ut e wou ld have be e n s ub mitte d to a jur y in a c c or da

nc e wi th Vincent’ s reque st f

or a jury trial. King Ranch, Inc. , 118 S.W .3d at 751. Howe ver, be cause Vincent7

pr e s e n te d n o e v id e n c e in r e s p o n s e to St e p h an ie ’ s n o e v id e n c e mo ti o n f o r s u mm ar

y ju d g me nt, the
case was proper ly terminated by the summary judgme nt proce ss. See Te x. R. C iv. P. 1 66 a (i ); Bl iss , 16 2 S. W.3 d at 43 7. I n o the r w or ds , th e re we re no iss ue s o f m a te ri a l f a c t to su bmi t to the jur

y . T hu s, removing the case from the j ury docket was proper and did not violate Vince nt’s constitutional right to a jury trial. See King , 205 S.W .3d at 734. Affir med.

__________________________________________ G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: May

16, 2007