i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 93 6- CV Z ulema DICK , Appellant
v . J immy Dea n DICK , Appellee Fr om the 79th J udicial District Court, J im W ells County , Texas

Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 07 -0 5- 45 85 0- CV Honora ble Richard C. Ter

rell, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: April 14, 2010 REVERSED & REMANDE D Th is i s an a

pp e a l fr om a jud g me nt dis mis sin g wi th p re jud ic e Z ule ma

Di c k’ s p e tit ion

fo r p os tdivorce division of m arital property and debts and awarding costs and attorne y ’s fe es to J immy Dea n Dick. Z ulema Dick cont ends the trial c ourt abused its discre tion by denying he r motion for continuance , dismiss ing her case, denying her mot ion to reinstate, and deny ing he r motion for new tr i al
. S h e also claims the trial c ourt err ed in enter ing a defa ult judgment ag ainst her f or costs and
a tto rn e y ’s fe e s.04
- 08
- 00 93 6- CV

- 2- B ACKG ROUND Z ulema Dick and J immy Dea n Dick we re divorc ed in 2005. On May 10, 2007, Z ulema filed an orig inal petition for post-divorce division of property and debts, to which J immy filed an or igina l
ans we r. Jimmy

did no t file a c ounte rc la im, bu t pra y e d f or a tto rn e y ’s fe e s and

c ourt c os ts. Z ule ma reque sted the trial cour

t set the ca se for

a non-jury

trial, and notified the c ourt h er fi rst setting pref ere nce w as Jul y

28, 2008. The trial c o urt conseque ntly set the ca se for

a fina l hear ing on that date, whic h was a

Monday . On Fr iday , J uly 25th, at 4:55p.m, Z ulema’s attorney , J uan Pera les, filed
a ve ri fi e d mo tio n f

or c on tin ua nc e that sta te d he su ff

e re d a n e lbo w i nju

ry , h a d b e e n d ia g no se d w ith tendinitis, and was re ceiving medical treatment due to e x treme pain. When Z ulema and he r attorne y did not appea

r Monday morning , the trial cour t denied the motion for c ontinuance. T he cour t signe d
a jud g me nt o n Se pte mbe r 3 0, 20 08 , d e nyinga ll r e lie f r e qu e ste d b y Z ule ma , d ism iss inghe r c la ims wi th p re jud ic e , a nd awa rd ingJimmy

$6 ,2 00 .0 0 in

a tto rn e y ’s fe e s a

nd $1 ,5 00 .0 0 in

e xpe rt fe e s. Z ulema fil ed a motion for new trial a nd motion to reinstate supported with counse l’s
a ff ida vit . B oth mot ion s w e re de nie d. Z ule ma fi le d th is a

pp e a l, a rguin g th e tr ial co ur

t a bu se d it s discretion in de n y ing he r motion for continuanc e, motion for new trial and motion to reinstate. Z ule ma a lso c on te nd s th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in awa rd inga tto rn e y ’s and

e xpe rt ’s fe e s to Jimmy

be c a us e he had not pled a

ny cause of ac tion to support the awar d.

D I S CUS S I ON Cont inu ance We r eview a

trial court’ s decision whethe r to g rant a continuance based upon the absenc e of counsel unde r an a

buse of discr etion standard. T EX . R. C IV . P. 25 1 & 253
. A tri a l c ourt a bu se s it s discretion whe n it acts without refe renc e to any g uiding r ules or princ iples. Downer v. Aquam arine04
- 08
- 00 93 6- CV

- 3- Operators, Inc ., 701 S.W .2d 238, 241-2 4 2 (Tex. 1985), cert. de nied , 476 U.S. 1159 (1986); Craddo ck v. S

u n shine Bus Lines , I nc., 134 Te x . 388, 133 S.W .2d 124, 126 (Tex. Comm ’n App. 1939, opinion adopted). In other wor ds, the trial cour t abuses its discretion whe n it acts in an arbitra ry or unre asonable manner . Downer , 701 S.W . 2d at 241-42. I n g ener al, absence of counsel is not g ood cause for a continuance
. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 251 & 25 3; Gende bien v. Ge ndebien , 668 S.W .2d 905, 907 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1984, no
wr it) . H ow e ve r, the tr ia l c ourt do e s h a ve the dis c re tio n to a llo w a con ti nu ance if g oo d c a us e is sh ow n o r “ up on

matte rs wi thi n th e inf

or matio n or k

no wl e dg e of

the jud g e wh ic h s ho w g oo d c a us e for c ontinuance.” Gende bien , 668 S.W .2d at 907-08. The act ion of the trial cour t will not be disturbed unl ess a clear

abuse of discretion is shown. Id
. We, the ref ore, must decide whe ther the court a bused its discretion in denying the continuance
. State v. Crank , 666 S.W .2d 91, 94 (Tex.), cert. de nied , 469 U.S. 833 (1984). Z ule ma ’s a tto rn ey file d a ve ri fi e d mo tio n f

or c on tin ua nc e of the fi na l he ari ngon

he r p os tdivorce division of proper ty and debts claim at 4:55 p.m. on J uly 25, the Fr iday

befor e the he aring set for the following Monday morning . Perale s did not file an af fidavit but verified the fac ts in the motion to be true and corr ect. The stated re ason for the continuanc e wa s counsel’s e lbow injury and tendinitis diag nosis on J uly 16, 2008. The motion for continuance was never set for hear ing. Neither Z ulema nor her counsel appea red on Monday J uly 28, 2008. Be cause of the limited expl anation of why Perale s was unable to attend t he hearing , the t rial court did not abuse its discre tion in deny ing the motion for continuanc e. See R ehab. Fac ility at Aus t i n , In c. v. Cooper , 962 S.W .2d 151, 155 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.)04
- 08
- 00 93 6- CV

- 4- Dism issal, R einstatem ent, & New Trial Z ulema’s ne x t three issues r elate to whe ther the tria l court abused i ts discretion in dismissi ng her c ase f or wa nt of prosec ution and failing to e ither reinstate the case or g rant a new tria l. When a
case is dismi ssed for w ant of prose cution, “[ t ] h e co u rt s h all reinstate the case upon finding afte r a hear ing that the failure of the pa rty or his attorney

[ t o appea

r] was not intentional or the re sult of
c on sc iou s in dif

fe re nc e bu t w a s d

ue to a n a c c ide nt o r m ist a ke or that the fa ilure ha s b e e n o the rw ise
rea sonably

explained.” T EX . R. C IV . P
. 1 6 5 a(3) . The standa rd is essentially

the same a s that for setting a side a de fault judg ment. See Craddock , 133 S.W .2d at 126. A fa ilure to appe ar is not intentional or due to c onscious indiffer ence within the me anin g of

the ru le me re ly

be c a us e it i s d e lib e rate ; it

mus t a lso be wi tho ut a de qu a te jus tif ic a tio n. Pr oo f o f j us tif

icatio n —

a c c ide nt, mis take or

oth e r r e a so na

ble explanation — neg ates the intent or c onscious indiffer ence for w h i ch reinstateme nt can be denied. Smith v. Babc ock &

W ilcox Const. Co., Inc ., 913 S.W .2d 467, 468 (Tex. 1995)(citing Bank One , Texas, N.A. v. Moody , 830 S.W .2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1992)). Wh ether the failure to appea r wa s not intentional or the re sult o f consc ious indiffere nce is a fac t determination within the trial cour t’s discretion. Johnson v. H

awkins , 25 5 S.W. 3d 39 4, 39 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —D a lla s 2 00 8, pe t. d e nie d) ; Cla rk
v. Y arbrough , 9 0 0 S. W. 2 d 4 0 6 , 4 0 9 ( T e x. A p p . — T e xar k an a 1 9 9 5 , w r it d e n ie d )
. H o w e v e r, if the fac tual asser

tions in party ’s af

fidavit are not controver

ted, the movant’s bur den i s satisfied if the aff idavit sets forth fa cts that, if true, ne g ate intentional or consciously indiffer ent conduc t. Di re c tor , S ta te E m p lo y e es W o r k e r s ’ Co m p . Div. v. Evans , 88 9 S. W.2 d 2 66 , 2 69 (T e x. 19 94 ). “ A f a ilure to
a pp e ar is no t int e nti on a l or du e to c on sc iou s ind if fe re nc e me re ly be c a

us e it w a s d e lib e rate ; r a the r, it must also be without just ification.” In re K.A.R. , 171 S.W. 3d 70 5, 71 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th Dist.] 2005, no pet.).04
- 08
- 00 93 6- CV

- 5- We reviewa dismissal for wa nt of prosec ution for abuse of discre tion. Ellmossallamy v. Huntsman , 830 S.W .2d 299, 300 (Tex. App.— Ho u s ton [ 14th Dist.] 1992, no writ). A tria l court abuses its discr etion in de ny ing reinstateme nt f ollowing a

dismiss al for w ant of prose cution when a n attorney ’s explanation for the fa ilure to appe ar is re asonable
. Kenley v. Quintana Petroleum Corp. , 9 3 1 S
. W
. 2 d

3 1 8 , 3 2 1 (T ex . Ap p . — S an An t o n i o 1 9 9 6 , wr i td en i ed ) ( ci t i n g Sm ith , 913 S.W .2d at 467- 68). Some excuse, but not nece ssarily a g ood excuse, is enou gh t o show lack of conscious indiffer ence . W

hitwort h v. Blume nthal , 59 S.W .3d 393, 401 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pe t. dism’d by ag r.). An unex pecte d happening is sufficie nt to establish “mistake or a ccide nt.” Ngu y e n v . Ki m , 3 S.W .3d 146, 152 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1999, no pet.). Pe ra le s atta c he d h is a ff

ida vit to t he mot ion to re ins tate and a pp e are d at th e he ari ng , b ut d id not testify at the hea ring
. The aff

idavit provides a de tailed history of his health proble ms, beg inning in J anuar y 2008 and continuing thr oug h Aug ust 2008. I n the af fidavit, Perale s expl ains his various ph y sic a l c on dit ion s and

pr ob le ms, state s th e date s o f h is d oc tor s’s vi si ts re latin g to h is a sth ma treatment an d el b o w injury . He state s he wa s presc ribed pa inkillers. The af fidavit included the fo llo wi nge xplanatio n a s to why his he a lth c on dit ion pr e ve nte d him fr om a pp e ari nga t th e July

28 th h ea ri n g: On J uly 25, 2008, counsel was ag ain examined by Dr. Anese lmo Ga rcia who pr e sc ri be d b loo d te sts fo r fu rt he r dia g no sis of se ve re sy

mpt oms of

a sth ma . D r. Ga

rc ia a lso e xami ne d c ou

ns e l’ s e lbo w and a lso dia g no se d te nd ini tis . D ue to t he dr ow sin e ss cause d by pain medication and asthma sy mptoms, counse l w as unable to appe ar f or the trial in this cause. Th e a ff ida vit c on ta ins an o utl ine of do c tor s’ a pp oin tme nts , dia g no se s, te sts and me dic a l tr e a tme nts conducte d prior to J uly

28, 2008.04
- 08
- 00 93 6- CV

1 ... H avi ng f

ound an abus e of

di s cr et i on, we nee d n ot addres s Zul ema’ s com pl ai nt r ega r di ng t he deni al of he r m o tio n fo r n e w trial.

- 6- B e c a us e Jimmy

did no t con tr ov e rt

the fa c tua l ave rm e nts in P e ra le s’ s a ff ida vit , Z ule ma
satis fi e d he r burd e n if the fa c ts se t f or th i n th e a ff

ida vit , if tr ue , n e g a te d in te nti on a l or c on sc iou sly indiffer ent conduct by

Perale s. Evans , 8 89 S.W. 2d a t 26 9; Strac k

be in v . P re witt , 671 S.W .2d 37, 38-39 (Te x . 1984). Althoug h Perale s’s first af fidavit filed in conjunction with t h e m otion for continuance was not suffic ient to show g ood cause for a continuance , Perale s’s much more de tailed
a ff ida v i tw a s s u f

f i c i e n tt o n e g a t e i n t e n t i o n a l d i s r e g ar d o r c o n s c i o u s i n d i f

f e r e n c e . T h e a f

f ida vit at ta c h e d to th e mo ti o nto r e in s tate p r o v id e d d e ta il e d in f o r mati o nr e g ar d in g Pe r a le s ’ s medical condition and an e x planation as to why his c o n d i t i o n re n dere d him unable to attend the Monda y
m o rn i n g h ea ri n g. P er al es ’s co n d i t i o nwa s s o m e e x cu s e, n o tn ec es s ar i l y a go o d ex cu s e, b u ten o u gh t o s h o w lack of

conscious indiffe renc e. Se e W hit wor th , 5 9 S. W. 3 d

a t 4 0 1
. We h o ld

Pe r a le s’s absenc e, althoug h deliberate, was justified g iven the circumstance s, and the failure to appea r at the non-jury trial was not due to intentional disreg ard or conscious ind i fferenc e. See A nderson v. Anderson , 282 S.W .3d 150, 154 -155 (Te x . App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.). Z ulema met her burden of neg ating conscious indiffe renc e and the trial court abused i ts discretion in denying her motion for reinstateme nt. Se e Strac k be in , 671 S.W .2d at 38-39 (trial court abuses discr etion if the plaintiff’s evidenc e neg ating conscious indiffe renc e is uncontrove rted). 1 Award of At

torney’s and Expert’s Fees I n her f inal issue, Z ulema arg ues the trial c ourt abused its discre tion in renderinga judg ment ag ainst her for attorney ’s and expert’s fee s. The trial court a war ded Ji mmy

attorney ’s and e x pert’s fee s pursuant to the fa

mily code. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 9.014 (Ve rnon 1998) (family code04
- 08
- 00 93 6- CV

- 7- pr ov ide s tr ia l c ourt

“ may awa rd re a so na ble a tto rn e y ’s fe e s a s c os ts i n a pr oc e e din g un de r t

his subchapte r.”)
. Be cause we reve rse a nd rema nd the judg ment on which the tria l court base d its award of attorne y ’s fe es and c osts, we also re verse and re mand the aw ard of attorne y ’s and e x pert’s f ees for f urther pr ocee dings. T EX . R. C IV . P
. 4 3 .2(d) ( court of a ppeals may

reve rse the tr ial court’s judgme nt and re mand for f urther pr ocee dings) ; se e Or ix Cap ita l M

ar k e t L. L.C. , 19 3 S
. W
. 3 d 620, 626 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pe t.). C ONCL US I ON We re ve rs e the tr ia l court jud g me nt an d r e ma nd fo r t ri a l on Z ule ma Di c k’ s c la im f

or po stdiv or c e div isi on

of mari ta l pr op e rt

y and de bts and

Jimmy De an D ic k’ s r e qu e st f

or fe e s a nd c os ts.

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice