### NUM BER 13-03- 171- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
ROB ERTT WIST , A pp ellan t,
v . ROE L “ROB IE” F LOR ES, E T A L., A pp ellees .

On ap pe al f rom th e 9 3rd Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la Appel lan t, Robe rtT w is t, appeal s f ro m tr ial co urt orders d is mis si ng hi s c ase for w ant of jurisdiction, de n yin g h is motio n to reinst ate , and g rantin g a mo tion for sum ma ry jud g ment i n fav or

of one of the appel lee s. In m u lt ip le is sues , Tw is t c lai ms t hat t he tr ial
cour t abu sed it s d is creti on by : (1 ) dis mis si ng the cas e for w ant o f pros ecut ion bec ause aSee T w ist v. M cAll en Nat ’

l Bank , 29 4 S

. W

. 3d 25 5 ( T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 09 , no pe t

. ); Tw ist 1 v. McA ll en Nat ’

l Bank , 2 48 S

. W

. 3d 35 1 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 07 , ori g. pro c ee di ng ); T w is t v . G a rc ia , N o. 13 -05 -00 32 1-C V , 20 07 W L 24 42 36 3 ( T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i A ug . 30 , 20 07 , no pe t

. ) (m em . o p .); In re Tw ist , N o. 13 -07 -00 40 2-C V , 20 07 W L 20 52 31 6 ( T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i A pr. 18 , 20 07 , ori g. pro c ee di ng ); Tw ist v. M cAll en N at ’

l Bank , N o. 13- 04- 00613
- C V, 200 5 W L 15 72738 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i Jul y 7, 200 5, n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .) (p e r c u ria m ); I n r e Tw ist , N o. 13- 04- 00660
- C V, 200 4 W L 29 85216 ( T ex. App. –C or pus C h ris ti D e c . 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , o rig . p ro c e e d i n g ); Tw ist v. Tw ist , N o. 13- 97- 00717
- C V , 1999 W L 34 97334 7 ( T ex. A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i Ja n. 28 , 19 99 , no pe t

. ).

. 2 bankr uptc y

st ay as to one app ell ee w as appl ic abl e to the o ther appel lee s b ecaus e the is sues w er e so i nter

tw ine d; ( 2) di smi ss ing the cas e bec ause all facts and ci rc umstan ces show ed he ex er ci sed due di li g ence; ( 3) r efusing to re ins tate the c a se ; a n d ( 4) fail ing to make findi ng s o f f act

. Tw is t al so urg es that the t ri al cour t er re d by

g ra nti ng one of the ap pe l l ee ’ s mo ti on for

s um ma r y j ud g me nt

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On J une 18, 1999, Tw is t filed sui t ag ain st appel lee s Roe l “R obi e” F lores, M aur een Bal l, D ar len e L. Val e, B re nda Tw is t G ri g g s, Vi cto ri a Gue rra and Ma nuel Guer ra , I II, ar is ing from a tra n sf er

of money

from one of Tw is t’ s b ank acc ounts

. He all eg ed th at hi s for mer
w ife, B re nda G rigg s, w ire transfer re d $175, 000 from his ac countto a bank i n C orsi cana and then f iled a divorce action. In this case an d oth ers that have p rev iously be en b efore t h i s Court , T w i s tc l a i ms t h a tt h e fu n d s w e r e h i s s e p a r a t e p r o p e rt y a s t h e r e s u l to f a personal i nju ry

se ttl ement. 1 Brend a hired Va le to represe nt he r in the d iv orce action

. T w ist h ired Flores and Ball to repr esenthi m. They ce ased re pr esen ti n g h im i n J une 199 6, bu t Tw is t c lai ms t hey act iv ely co nceal ed facts from hi m thatw oul d ha ve a ss ist ed hi m in hav ing thos e funds
re tur ned.3

Tw i s t c l ai ms t ha t i n 19 77 he emp l oy ed V i c to r i a an d M an ue l G ue r r a to r ep r es en t hi m. He arg ues that he w as persuade d to enter i nto a Rule 11 agreement, w her eby hi s funds
w er e to be retur ned. H e urg es that the Guer ra s, Val e, and Br enda cons pired to defraud him of the funds all eg edl y transfer re d by

Brenda. Tw is t req uest ed a jur y tr ial and filed a moti on for tr ial se tti ng . On A pr il 28, 2000, the t ri al cour t s et t he moti on for a hear ing to be hel d on June 7, 200 0. No trial date w as set at the h earing o n tha t dat e. On June 7, 200 0, ap pellee Vale f iled a m otion for sum ma ry judgmen t, prima rily

u rg in g t h a t s he o w ed n o du ty to T w ist be c au s e s he w as r ep r es en ti ng Bren da i n th e di v or c e an d w as , th erefo r e, ad v ers e to h i m. The tr ial co urt granted Val e’s summary judg ment on Dec ember 27, 2000. Ther eafter, on Janu ary26, 20 01, Twist f il e d a “ Mo tion to Reform Orde r g rantin g Motion for Sum ma ry Judg ment t o D ar len e Val e.” N o oth er ac ti on on thi s cas e w as take n f or tw o y ears, unti l the Guer ra appel lee s fil ed th eir moti on to di smi ss for w ant o f pros ecut ion pursuantto Tex as Rul e of C iv il Procedu re 165 and the i nher ent p ow ers o f a cour t t o manag e i ts dock et. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 65. Tw is t fil ed a re spons e on Febr uar y 5, 2003. The tr ial co urt hel d a hear ing on the moti on to dis mis s on Febr uar y 5, 2003. At that hear ing , Tw is t c all ed th re e w it ness es, i ncl udin g hi msel f. The first, M ag da Sol is , an employ ee w it h the H ida lg o C ounty tr ustfund dep a rt m ent, tes ti fied th at Tw is t as ked her manyti me s a b o u t t h e s t a t u s o f a t r i a l s e t t i n g a n d s h e i n fo r me d h i m t h a t t h e r e w as no set ti ng . Sol is sa id that she is not the person to g o to for a tr ial se tti ng . She t est ified that she to ld Twist that he w ould nee d to get a do cket con trol conf eren ce an d go to the cou rt
coordin ator

or the jud g e to g et a tr ial se tti ng . El is eo Bor re g o, a deputy cl er k a nd records
cus todi an, t est ified thatTw is t had co me i nto his of fice sev er al ti mes an d w oul d l ook at t he4

f ile an d th e d o ck e t she e t. Bo rre go te st if ie d th a t he was no t th e o n e to go to fo r tr ia l se tt in gs and that the sam e proce dure f o r s e t ting cases for trial had be en followed for the e ntire thi rt een y ears t hat he had been employ ed by the cour ts. H e tes ti fied th at he tol d Tw is t t hat Tw is t w oul d hav e to tak e up is sues r eg ar din g a t ri al set ti ng w it h the co urt c oordin ator

. Tw is t t est ified thathe filed a moti on for tr ial set ti ng on Apr il 18, 2000. H e s tated that he made sev er al tr ips to the c oordin ator ’s of fice after that. He als o s aid he t ele phoned the
cour t on a number of oc cas ion s. He sai d the coordin ator infor med him that he w oul d g et
w ri tten noti ce w hen t he c ase w as setfor t ri al. Tw is t s tated that he had at tempted to pr epar e for tr ial by

r eadi ng ev er

y thi ng and speak ing to potent ial counsel . He cl aimed that he was read y

to go to tri al. But, he agreed tha t in 200 3, th ere w as no thing don e to act iv ely pursue the c ase, ex ceptan aff ida v itthat had been f il ed w hen Tw is t obt ain ed c ounse l and he di d notdisput e that th er e w as no req uestfor t ri al set ti ng i n 2002. Tw is t s aid thathe h ad not made a w ri tten re q uestfor t ri al set ti ng after Apr il 18, 2000, becau se he di dn’ t t hin k h e needed to. T w is t admitt ed that he did not make an i nq uir y about a t ri al set ti ng i n for all of 2001 an d 2002, bec ause he di d not w ant to mak e a n uis ance of himse lf and he c oul d g et the s ame i nformati on from t he doc ketsh eet. A n o t h e r h e a ri n g wa s h e ld o n Ma rc h 1 0 , 2 0 0 3

. At t h a th e a ri n g , Fe m ia Ro d ri gu e z, the for mer cour

t c oordin ator

for t he 93rd D is tr ic t Cour t, test ified thatTw is t w oul d c all and
com e by the court. Sh e w ould inform h im that the re w as no setting on th ose o ccasion s. Joel Es pin osa, the coordin ator f or the 93rd Dis tr ic t C our

t s inc e 2001, al so tes ti fied th at he h a d l o o ke d throug h the fil e and had s een no act iv it y si nce June 2000. Ac cordin g to Espi nosa, othe r than a s ing le docket c o ntrol confer ence, the re cord di d notr eflectany other r eq uestby

Tw is t t o ac ti v ely

prosec ute a nd req uesta t ri al set ti ng .5 II. D I S MI S S A L FO R WA NT OF P ROS E CUT I ON A . St and ard o f Rev iew an d A pp licab le L aw By i ss ues tw o, thr ee, and fiv e, Tw is t cl aims that the tr ial cour t abu sed it s d is creti on in dis mis si ng hi s c ase for w ant o f pros ecut ion

. He cl aims thatthe ev ide nce show ed th at he w a s u t i l i z i n g d u e d i l i g e n c e a n d h a d b e e n d e p r i v e d o f a me a n i n g fu l o p p o rt uni tyto be heard. W e r e view a di smi ss al for w ant o f pros ecut ion under a c lea r abuse of dis creti on sta ndard. Ma cGr

egor v. R ich, 941 S.W .2d 7 4, 75 ( Tex . 199 7)

. A tr ial co urt abu se s i ts dis creti on by

ac ti ng “ w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing r ule s o r pr inci ple s” or by ac ti ng a r b i t r a r i l y o r u n re asona bly

. E.I. du Pont de Nem our s a nd C o., Inc . v

. R obi nson, 923 S.W .2d 5 49, 5 58 ( Tex . 199 5) ; W orford v. Stamper, 801 S.W .2d 108, 109 (Tex

. 1990)

. A trial court derives its auth orityto dism iss fo r w ant of prosecu tion f rom two sources: (1) rule of ci v il procedu re 165a, and (2 ) the t ri al cour t' s i nher ent p ow er . G a rc ia v . Barreiro , 115 S. W .3 d 27 1 , 2 7 5 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 3 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Villarreal v. San Anto nio Tr uck & Equi p., 994 S.W .2d 6 28, 6 30 ( Tex .1999) ); see T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 16 5a. Under Rule 165a, the t ri al cour

t may di smi ss w hen any par

ty seek ing aff ir mati v e r eli ef f ail s t o appea r for a hear ing or

tr ial w hen t hat p arty

had noti ce of such hear ing or tr ial

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 65a( 1) ; see als o Bar re ir o, 115 S.W .3d a t 275. Addi ti onal ly , R ule 165a empow ers t he tr ial co urt t o di smi ss a c ase w hen i t i s “ not d is posed of w it hin the time s tandards prom ulgated bythe Su prem e Court.” See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 65a( 2) ; see als o Bar re ir o, 115 S.W .3d at 275

. W hen a p laintif f f ails to prose cute a case w ith du e diligence, th e trial court maydi smi ss the cas e under i ts inh er ent a uthor it y . Bar re ir o, 115 S .W .3 d a t 275 ( ci ti ng6

Villarreal, 994 S.W .2d a t 630)

. “[A] par ty must be prov ide d w it h not ic e and an oppo rt uni ty to be hea rd bef ore a cou rt may dismiss a case f o r want of prosecu tion u nde r either rule 165 a or the court's inhe rent au tho rity .” Id . A t the d ismissal he aring, the cou rt shall dismiss for w ant of prosec uti on unl ess there is g ood caus e for the cas e to be maint a in e d on the dock et. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 16 5a(1 ). In de term ining w het her du e diligence exists, th e trial co urt ma y co nside r th e en tire his tor y of the cas e, inc lud ing : (1 ) the leng th of time the case w as on f il e; (2) the extent of act iv it y i n the ca se; ( 3) w hether a t ri al set ti ng w as re q uest e d ; and ( 4) the ex is tenc e of
re asona ble ex cus e for del ay . Pol k v . Sw. Cr oss ing Hom eowner

s A ss 'n, 165 S.W .3d 8 9, 97 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2005, pet. deni ed) ; Chr is ti an v. C hr is ti an, 985 S.W .2d 513, 514- 15 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant onio 1 9 9 8 , n o pet .) ; see Al len v. R ushi

ng, 129 S.W .3d 226 , 231 (Tex. App. –T exarka n a 2 004 , no pe t.) (rev iew ing as fa ctors in a diligence de te r mi na ti on ( 1) e v i de nc e of a tt em pt i ng t o s er v e th e de fen da nt s , ( 2) th e am ou nt of t i me the suit w as on f ile, and (3) w het her m otion to reinsta te had been filed ). Due dili gence is g ener all y

a qu est ion of fact. Chr is ti an , 9 8 5 S. W .2 d at51 5 (cit in g MacGrego r, 941 S. W .2d at 75 -7 6)

. Fur

ther more, a pro s e l it ig ant i s h eld to the s ame st andards as li cens ed attor ney s and mustco mply w it h appl ic abl e l aw s a nd r ule s o f proc edur e. Gr een v . Ka post a, 152 S.W .3d 839 , 841 (Tex. App. –Dallas 20 05, no pe t.). B. A nal ysis The r ecord s how s t hat Tw is t made a s ing le re q uestfor a tr ial se tti ng and attend ed a do cket con trol conf eren ce. He testif ie d t h a t h e w ould regularly ask the d istrict clerk personne l to de ter mine if t h e c ase had bee n s et for tr ial

. He understo od th at i t w as not.7

Hi s t est imony

st ro ng ly su g g est ed that he bel iev ed he did not need t o do anythi ng el se and
e ven tu a lly hi s ca se w o u ld be se t fo r tri a l. Pra ct ici n g a tt o rn e ys u n d e rst a n d th a t t ria l se tt in gs ar e obt ain ed from the c our t c oordin ator

. Al thoug h Tw is t w as not a n att or ney , he embar ked
on a case pro se a nd is held to the same stand ard. Litigants are required to act as ordina ry pr udent persons under the s ame or si mil ar ci rc umstan ces . Ma nni ng v . Nor th , 82 S.W .3d 706, 713 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2002, no pet .)

. Base d upon the e v ide nce pr esent ed here, the trial court could ha v e, in its d is c re t io n , p rope rly conclud ed th at T w ist did not act
reaso nab ly

in taking no action to det ermin e w hy his case had not bee n set fo r tri al. He also performe d no discovery during that pe riod of

time. From the trial court’s p e rs p e c t ive , it
c o u ld h a ve re a s o n a b ly a p p e a re d t h a tT wis td id n o t h in g t o b ri n g h is ca s e t o t ri a l fo r t wo y ears other

than check

w it h the distr ic t cle rk

personne l and uns ucc ess fully att empt t o g et an at tor ney

to re pr esent him. Und er the c ircums tanc es, w e c annot conc lud e tha t t he tr ial court ab used its discretion. Furthe r, the trial co u rt allow ed T w ist to f ully presen t his argume nts con cerning w hy his case sho uld no t be dism issed at ev iden tiaryhea rings w here he w as re pr esent ed. Tw is t’ s s econd , t hird and fifth is sues ar e ov er ru led

. C . F a i l u r e t o M a k e F i n d i n g s o f F a c ta n d C o n c l u s i o n s o f L a w By h is fo u rt h iss u e , T wist a rgu e s t h a t t h e tr ia l co u rt e rre d in fa ili n g to m a kin g f in d in gs o f fa ct a n d co n clu sio n s of la w. On Fe b ru a ry 26 , 2 0 0 3 , T wist f ile d hi s re que stfo r f in d in gs of fact an d con clusions o f law

. O n March 19, 2 003 , he f iled his not ice of past du e f indings. In IKB Indus . (

Ni ger ia) Ltd. v. Pr

o- Lin e C or

p., 938 S. W .2d 4 40, 4 43 ( Tex . 199 7) , t he court opi ne d th at a r eq ue s t for fi nd i ng s ha s no pu r po s e an d s ho ul d no t be ma de in circumsta nces where the re is a dismissal for w ant o f prosecu tion wi tho ut an ev iden tiary8

hea ring. Here, ho we ve r, there was an evi den tiaryhea ring, so, if prop erly and timely requeste d, find ings w ould have bee n prop er, altho ugh und er IKB Indus tr ies , m a y n o th a ve been re q uired. In IKB Indus tr ies, t h e co u rt st a t e d t h a tt h e p u rp o s e o f ru le 2 9 6 is t o gi ve a party the ri g ht to f ind ing s of fact af ter an adj udi cat ion on the mer it s. Id. at 44 2. There, the c our t opi ned: “ [i ]n ot her

ca ses findi ng s a nd c oncl usi ons ar e proper , buta pa rt y i s n ot ent itled to them .” Id. An or der di smi ss ing a c ase for w ant o f jur is dict io n i s n ot an adj udi cat ion of the r ig ht of the par ti es, rather

it simpl y puts the par

ti es in the s ame pos it ion they w er e i n pr ior

to fili ng su it

. Dick Poe Motors, Inc. v. Daim lerChrylser Corp ., 169 S. W .3d 4 7 8 , 4 8 5 (T e x. Ap p .– El Pa so 20 0 5 , n o p e t. ). T h e t ria l co u rtwa s n o t re qui re d t o f ile f in d in gs of fact be cause there was no adju dicatio n on the m erits. How ev er , ev en i f f ind ing s o f f act w er e re q uired her e, t he resul t w oul d be the s ame. Gen eral ly , w hen prope rly and timely requeste d, a trial court ha s a ma nda tory dut y to f ile findi ng s o f f actand conc lus ion s o f law

. Gl ass v. Will iam son , 137 S.W .3 d 114, 117- 18 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 4, no pet. ) (c it ing C her ne In dus. v. M

agal len es , 763 S.W .2d 768 , 772 (T ex. 19 89)). Ha rm is p resum ed unle ss t he cont rary a ppe ars on th e face of the record. T

en er y v . T ene ry , 9 3 2 S

. W

. 2 d 29, 30 (Tex. 1996 ). The test for harm is
w hether a par ty m usttr y to g uess the re asons the tr ial co urt r ule d ag ain st it

. See Carr v. Hubb ard , 664 S.W 2d 1 51,153 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 198 3, w ri t ref’d n. r. e.)

. Here, the t rial cou rt h eld a lengthy he aring on the mot ion to dismiss, allowed T w ist to pu t on w it ness es, and infor med Tw is t that he fail ed to foll ow the ru les and faile d to follo w throug h. The cour

t s aid there w as no misc a rria g e of ju sti ce. The t ri al cour t det er mined that g ood c ause w as lac ki ng .9

Here, T w ist did not have to guess w hy his case had b een d ismissed

. Th e trial court felt t he c ase had notbeen prosec uted w it h due d ilig ence. U nder the ci rc umstan ces pr esent ed here, i f f ind ing s o f f acthad been req uired, Tw is t w as not h ar med by the tr ial
cour t’ s fai lure to file them. W e ov er ru le is sue four. III . F A I LU RE T O A BA TE T w ist argues in his f irst issue that the trial court erred by not aba ting the case once itbec ame aw ar e tha t Brenda ha d fil ed for bankrupt cy . Tw is t prefaces his arg ument by statin g t h a t this Court’s decision , in Twist v. Mc Al len Nat’ l Bank , 2 4 8 S

. W

. 3 d 3 5 1 (T e x. App .–Corp us Christi 2007 , orig. proce edin g) , “at f irst blush see ms to be dispositive of this is sue. ” W e ag re e w it h Tw is t’ s ass ess ment to the extent that iti s d is posi ti v e. In t hat c ase,
w e hel d that a sui t filed ag ain st a debtor already under the p ro tec ti on of a ban kr uptc y st ay is a nu ll it y . Id . at363. A tr ial co urt does not acq uire jur is dic ti on ov er an a cti on c ommenced dur ing an a utomati c s tay

. Id

. Br enda f il ed for bankr uptc y

on Ma rc h 1, 1999. Tw is t fil ed the c auses of act ion at is sue her e, inc lud ing the a cti on ag ain st Br enda, on J une 18, 1999, aft er t he b an k r up tc y

w as fi l ed a nd t he s ta y w as i n for c e. Th erefo r e, u s i ng th e s am e re asoni ng se t fort h i n our ear li er opi nio n, as w e are bound by our ow n precede nt, she w as nev er a pa rt y to the a cti on i n the tr ial co urt. See Weiner v. Wasson , 900 S.W .2d 316, 32 0 (Te x . 199 5). A b ankr uptc y

st ay protec ts the d ebtor

from the commencement or conti nuati on of
an act ion ag ain st them. Stay s pursuant to 11 U. S.C

. § 362 ar e li mite d to the debtor and do not encompas s n on- bankr upt c o- defendants. In r e Sw. Bel

l Tel. C o. , 35 S.W .3d 6 02, 604 ( Te x . 2 0 0 0 )

. H e r e , t h e c l a i ms a g a i n s tt h e n o n - d e b t o r a p p e l l e e s a r e i n d e p e n d ent10

cause s o f

a ction and would not be de pen den t upo n the outco me of Twist’s action against Br enda i f she had been a proper par ty to the t ri al cour

t ac ti on. W e ov er ru le is sue one. IV. S U M M A R Y J UDG M ENT By hi s s ixth i ss ue, Tw is t urg es that the tr ial courter re d i n g ra nti ng Val e’s moti on for
summar y j udg ment bec ause there w er e g enui ne i s s u e s o f mate ri al fact reg ar din g fraud and consp iracy

to def raud tha t do not require priv ity of cont ract to en able Twist to ha v e a vi able
cause of action against her. A . St and ard o f Rev iew W e r ev iew

a t ri al cour

t' s d eni al of a tradi ti onal m oti on for summary

judg ment und er a de nov o s tandard of r ev iew

. Cr editwatc h, Inc. v. Ja ck

son, 1 5 7 S .W .3 d 814, 816 n . 7 (T e x. 20 0 5 ) (ci ti n g Schn eide r Nat'l C arrie rs , I n c . v . Bate s, 147 S.W .3d 2 64, 2 90 n. 137 (Tex . 200 4) ); Al

ani z v. Hoyt , 105 S.W .3d 3 30, 3 45 ( Tex . Ap p.– Corpus C hr is ti 2003, no pet .). To o bta in relief

bya t radition al mo tion for sum ma ry judgmen t, the movant m ust est abl is h that no mater ial fact i ss ue ex is ts and t hat i t i s e nti tl ed to j udg ment as a mat ter of law

. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66a(c) ; Sw. Elec. Power C o. v . G ra nt, 7 3 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 (T e x. 2002) ; Mow

bray v. Avery, 76 S .W .3d 6 63, 6 90 (T ex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet. deni ed)

. To meet t his burden, a defe n d a n t m u st eit her co ncl usi v ely

neg ate a t l eastone of the es sent ial el ements of a caus e of acti on or co ncl usi v ely

es tabl is h eac h el ement of an aff ir mati v e defense. Ran dal l' s F ood Mkts ., I n c. v. Johnso n , 8 9 1 S

. W

. 2 d 6 4 0 , 6 4 4 (T e x. 1995) ; Te x. M onthl

y, Inc . v . T ra nsam . Natur

al Gas C or p., 7 S

. W

. 3 d 8 0 1 , 8 0 5 (T e x. App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 99, no pe t.).11

In de ci din g w hether

there i s a disput ed f actiss ue that precl udes summar y j udg ment,
ev ide nce fav or abl e to the n on- mov ant w il l be ta ken as tr ue. Am . Toba cco Co. v. Grinne ll, 9 5 1 S. W .2 d 42 0 , 4 2 5 (T e x. 19 9 7 ) (ci ti n g Ni xon v. Mr

. Pr op. M gm t. Co. , 690 S.W .2d 5 46, 548- 49 ( Tex . 198 5) ). M or eov er , ev er y r eason abl e i nferenc e must be ind ulg ed in fav or of the n on- mov ant a nd any doubt s resol v ed i n i ts fav or . Id . (c it in g Ni xon, 690 S.W .2d at 549 ). B. The M otion Val e mov ed for summar y j udg ment on the b asi s t hat s he ow ed no duty to Tw is t. In suppo rtof her

summary

j udg ment, Val e produce d an aff ida v itw her ein sh e s tated thatsh e had only an a dversarial relatio nship w ith T w ist since she h ad b een hired to rep resen t his forme r w ife in a divorce action. She also su bm itted the pe tition sh e f il e d on Bren da’s behal f. Tw is t respon ded t o the moti on by urg ing thathe h as a neg li g ent mi srepr esent ati on cl aim agai n st Val e, as w ell as cl aims for fr aud, fraudul ent i nduce ment, and i ntent ion al mis condu ct. C. A nal ysis There is no caus e of

acti on agai nstopposi ng counsel f or r epr esent ing a c li ent i n a jud ic ial proce edi ng . See W hite v. Ba yless, 32 S.W .3d 271 , 276 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t

. ); Mitch ell v. C hapm an 10 S .W .3d 8 10, 8 12 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2000, pet. deni ed) ; Br

adt v . West, 892 S.W .2d 56, 71 -72 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1 s t D is t

. ] 1 994 , w rit den ied). Und er Tex as law , at to rn e ys cannot b e hel d l iab le for w ro ng ful l it ig ati on c onduc t. See B ra dt, 892 S.W .2d a t 71- 72. A c ontrar y pol ic y “ w oul d di lut e the vi g or

w it h w hic h Tex as atto rneys repre sent their clients” and “w ould not be in the best intere sts of justice.” Id. at12

72. Anyothe r r ule w ould act as a severe and crippling det erre n t to the end s of justice beca use a litig ant might be de nied a f ull developm ent of his ca s e if his at torne y w ere subje ct to the threat of liability for def end ing his cl ient's p o s it io n t o the best an d f ullest
extent all ow ed by

l aw , and av ail ing hi s c li ent o f all r ig hts to w hic h he is enti tl ed. T here are exception s to the bar w hich arise on ly w hen an att orne y

has en gaged in neg li g ent m isr epr esent ati on or an a ttor ney

may be l iab le for c onv ersi on or fraud if the attor ney “ personal ly

st eal s g oods ortell s l ies on a cl ien t’ s b ehal f.” C hu v . Hong , 249 S. W .3 d 4 4 1, 44 6 ( Tex . 200 8) ; see Mc Cam is h, M ar ti n, B ro wn & Loe ffler

v. F.E. Appl

ing Inte rests, 991 S.W

. 2 d 7 87, 794 (Tex. 1999 ). H ere, th e sum ma ry judgmen t evi den ce esta blished that Vale owed T w ist no du ty, and Twist has p resen ted no con trary ev iden ce to rais e a facti ss ue. W e ov er ru le Tw is t’ s s ixth i ss ue. V. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

RO SE VELA J u s t i c e

Del iv er ed and filed the 13th day of Ma y , 201 0.