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

NO. 03-05-00450- CV

K e it h W. Wil lia m s, App e lla nt

v. M ike G e e sli n, i n his Offic ialCa pac it y a s C om m iss ion e r of Ins ur anc e for th e St at e of Te xa s,

and T exas De partm ent of In surance, Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN 5002 99, H ONO RAB LE LORA J. LIVINGSTO N, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
A def ault orde r was entere d by the Commiss ioner of I

nsuranc e Mike Ge eslin (the

“ Com mis sio n e r ” ) a g a i n s t

K e i t h W i l liams, wh ic h r e vo ke d s e ve ra l of his ins ur anc e lic e ns e s. Willi a ms filed a motion for r ehea

ring with the Texas Depar tment of I nsuranc e (t h e “D epar tment”). The motion was overr

uled, and Wil liams a

ppeale d the order to the district court. The Commissioner and the Depa rtment (collec ti vely

“appe llees”) filed a motion for summar y judgme nt contending that Wil liams’s moti o n fo r re h ear ing did not suff iciently descr ibe the er

rors he complained of

and, there fore , did not preser

ve his rig ht to appea l. The district c ourt g rante d the appe llees’ motion for
summa ry jud g me nt. We w ill a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.2 BACK GR OUND On Novembe r 24, 2004, the Commissioner entere d a d efa ult order r evoking the following insurance licenses from Wil liams: (1) ge nera l life, (2) acc ident and hea lth, and (3) g ener al proper ty and casualty
. The order contained t wenty -five f indings of f

act a nd eig ht conclusions of law inc lud ing , a mon g oth e rs , that (1 ) the De pa rtme nt h a d r e c e ive d tw e lve c omp la int s a g a ins t Will iams; (2) Williams conducted business under the name s of two insuranc e compa nies, which we re not reg istered with the De partment; (3) Wil li am s failed to obtain insuranc e policies for sever al ind ivi du a ls a ft e r c oll e c tin g pr e mium pa y me nts ; (4 ) Willi a ms fa ile d to fo rw ard pr e mium pa

y me nts to t he a pp ro pr iate ins ur anc e c omp anie s; ( 5) W il li a ms f a ile d to re sp on d to any

of the c omp la int s de sp ite re pe a te d r e qu e sts fr om t he De pa rtme nt; (6 ) Wi lli a ms e ng a g e d in fr a ud ule nt o r dis ho ne st a c ts or pra ctices; a

nd (7) Williams m isappropriated mo n ey . The orde r wa s sent to Wi lliams on No ve mbe r 2 9, 20 04 , v ia

c e rt if ie d ma il. I n response , Wil liams filed a pro se motion for re hear ing dated Dec ember 18, 2004, statin g the fo llo wi ng :
IKEI TH WI L L I AMS W I SH T O APPEAL THE DESCI PI NARY ACTI ON AB OVE MENTI ON. I

FEEL THAT TH E FI

NDI NG F ACT S OR AL LRESOL VE OR FAL SE. I W IS H T O O B T A IN A N H E R R IN G O R

F U T H E RD IS C U S S IO N O F T H IS MA TT ER. IKEI TH WI L L I AMS W I SHT O N O T SU SP EN D M YL I CE N SE U NTI LFURTHE R NOTI CE.
On J anuar y 26, 2005, the Depa

rtment sent notice that Willi a ms ’ s mo ti o n

f o r r e h e a r ing had bee n overr

uled by operation of law, and Willi ams filed suit in the district court see king judicia l3

re v i ew of the def ault order
. See T e x. G o v ’ t Co d e A n n . § § 2 0 0 1
. 1 4 6 ( c ) ( We s t 2 0 0 0 ) (motion for rehe aring , unless time e x tended, ove rruled by operation of law 45 day s after party notified of ag ency
or de r) ; 20 01 .1 71 (We st 2 00 0) (p art y tha t ha s e xha

us te d a ll a dmi nis tr a tiv e rem edi e s e nti tle d to judicial revie w of a g ency decision). Appe llees filed a motion for summary

ju d gm en t s t ati ng that Wil liams’s motion for rehe aringdid not properly p reserve e rror beca use it did not identify

the
a lle g e d e rr or s w ithsu ff

ic ie nt s pe c if

ic ity . T he dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nte d th e mot ion , a

nd Willi a ms a

pp e a ls the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
. STA ND AR D O F RE VI EW We reviewthe g ranting of a summar y j u d gm ent de novo. Va le nc e v . D or se tt Operating Co. , 1 64 S.W. 3d 65 6, 66 1 ( Te x. 20 05 ). I n r e vie wi ng a summa ry jud g me nt, we take a ll evidenc e fa

vorable to the nonmovant as true and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. Id. A movant is entitled to summary judgme nt if he demonstrates there are no g enuine issues of material fac t and establishes a ll the element s o f his claim as a matter of law. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 166a(c); Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. G rant , 73 S.W .3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2002).

DI SCU SSIO N On a pp e a l, Wi ll iams c on te nd s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in g ra nti nga pp e lle e s’ motion for s u mm ar

y ju d g me n t. Sp e c if

ic a ll y , h e c o n te n d s th a t h is mo ti o n f o r r e h e ar in g was sufficie ntly definite to prese rve his right to appe al bec ause he stated that the finding s of fa ct in the Depa rtment’s orde r we re f

alse. In support of this argument, Wil liams notes that the appellee ’s mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt d id n ot hav e an a ff ida vit statin g that a

pp e lle e s w e re un a

ble to compre hend Willi ams’s motion for re hear ing or corr ect the e rror s he complaine d of.4 We d isa g re e wi th Wi lli a ms’ s a sse rt ion . F ir st, we no te that, in or de r to p re ve nt u nf a ir
a dv anta g e , p ro se lit ig ants are he ld to the same sta nd a rd s as lic e ns e d att or

ne y s and are re qu ir e d to comply with appli ca b le laws a

nd proce dural rule s. LaGoye v . Victoria W ood Condo. Ass’n , 112 S.W. 3d 77 7, 78 7 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14t h Di st.] 20 03 , n o p e t.) ; see W heele r v. Gree n , 157 S.W. 3d 43 9, 44 4 (T e x. 20 05 ). Se c on d, we no te that, sub je c t to tw o exce pti on s not ap pli c a ble in t his
c a se , li tig ants wa

nti ngto a pp e a l an a g e nc y

or de r m us t f ile a mot ion fo r r e he ari ng in a

c on te ste d c a se hear ing w ithin twenty

day s after being notified of the or der. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 2001.145 (We st 2 00 0) , . 14 6( a ) ( Wes t 20 00 ) ( tw e nty -d ay de a dli ne ); s e e als o id. § 2 00 1. 14 4( a )( 3) , ( 4) (We st 2000) (de scribing exceptions).

The c ontents of a motion for r ehea ring deter mine whether

err or has be en pre serve d. Hill v. Board of Trs. of the Ret. Sys. of Tex. , 40 S.W .3d 676, 679 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, no pet.). The purpose of a motion for rehe aring is to inform the ag ency that the party is dissatisfied with the final orde r and w ill appeal the o rd er i f the ruling is not chang ed. Coalit ion for L ong Point Pr ese rv ati on v . Te

x as Com m’n o n E

nv tl. Qu ali ty , 106 S.W .3d 363, 373 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet. denied). For this rea son, the m otion must be sufficiently definite. Id. ; se e als o Dolenz v. Texas Sta te Bd

. of Med. Exam’ rs , 899 S.W .2d 809, 811 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, no writ) (motion for
re he ari ngmay

be so g e ne ra l th a t it

fa ils a s mo tio n) . T o b e e ff e c tiv e , a mot ion fo r r e he ari ngmus t

“ a pp ri se the re g ulator

y a g e nc y of the e rr or c la ime d” in o rd e r “t o all ow the a g e nc y op po rt un ity to
corr ect the err or or to prepa re to defe nd it.” Subaru Util. Cor p. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Tex. , 652 S.W. 2d 35 8, 36 5 ( Te x. 19 83 ); see D olenz , 8 9 9 S
. W .2d at 811. For eac h contention of e rror , the
co m p l ai n i ng party

must set out in hi s motion for rehe aring(1) the p a r ti c u la r fi n din g o f fac t , conclusion of law , ruling , or other a ction by the ag ency

that the complaining party asser ts was er ror5

and (2) the leg al basis upon which his cla im rests. Burke v . Central Educ. Agenc y , 725 S.W .3d 393, 39 7 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 87 , wr it r e f’ d n .r .e .) ; see D olenz , 899 S.W .2d at 811. Without these two elements, a

n age n cy wi ll be unable to cor rec t the err or complaine d of or pr epar e a de fense to the contention that the ac tion was err or. See Coalit ion for Long Point Preservation , 106 S.W .3d at 373; Burke , 725 S.W .3d at 397. Gene ralities will not suffice f or either element, and st atements to the eff ect that the a g ency ’s entire order or all of the f

indings of f

act or conclusions of laware in error will not suffice. Cf. Burke , 725 S.W .3d at 397

.

Wil liams’s mo t i o n fo r re hear ing doe s not identify the par ticular finding s of fa ct or
co n cl u s i o n s o f l aw h e b el i ev es ar e i nerro r. R at h er , h i s m o t i o ns ee m s t o s t at e t h at al l o f t h e f i n d i n gs of fa c t are fa lse , w hic h is too g e ne ra l to e na ble the a pp e lle e s to c or

re c t the e rr or or pr e pa

re a de fe ns e to Wi lliams’s assertion. See id. at 398-99 (cour t conclude d asser

tions in m otion for re hear ing w ere ins uf fi c ie nt b e c a

us e the y did no t r e fe r t o a

ny pa rt ic ula r f ind ingor c on c lus ion

and did no t r e fe r t o leg al principles as support; c ourt also reje cted idea that a g encie s should be require d to reviewentire
rec ord to find its own err ors and c orre ct them). F urther, a ppellees w ere not require d t o fi le an
a ff ida vit sp e c if y ing tha t th e y we re un abl e to un de rs tand the c omp la int s ma de by

Willi a ms i n h is mot ion ; on

the c on tr a

ry , the burd e n o f s pe c if

ic a lly statin g the e rr or s c omp la ine d o f w a s o n Wil liams. See Subaru U

til. Corp. , 652 S.W .2d at 365. Al te rn a tiv e ly , Wil liams a sse rt s th a t hi s mo tio n f or re he ari ngre a d in

c on jun c tio n w ith
a le tter f iled by his a tto rn e y

on Janu ary 24 , 2 00 5, pr ov ide d a

pp e lle e s w ithe no ug h in fo rm a tio n to
a sc e rt a in what hi s c omp la int s w e re and to ad dr e ss the m ac c or din g ly
. Th e le tte r a sk e d th e B oa rd to extend the de adline for filing a motion to set aside the verdic t due to error s alleg edly committed by appellee s. First, the letter stated that Wi lliams was not properly serve d with notice of the he aringI n t h e l et ter, Willi ams’s attorne y admits that the letter wa s written af ter the de adline for 1 filing a motion to s et aside the defa ult order. 6 beca use an individual other tha n Wil liams signed f

or the notice . Second, the letter s t at ed that the Commi ssioner’s orde r wa s sent to the wrong addre ss. Finally , the letter state d that Wil liams did not actua lly rec eive a copy of the orde r until Dece mber 16, 2004, a nd that, upon rec eipt of the order, W i l l i a m s f

i l e d h i s m o t i o no nDe ce mb er 1 8 , 2 0 0 4 , i nan at t em p tt o m ee tt h e d ea d l i n e f o r f i l i n g a
m o t i o nfo r r eh ea ri n g.

Howeve r, Will iam s made no mention of the se alleg ed er rors in his motion for rehe aring . Even a ssuming that the a lleg ations in the l etter are true and that W illiams di d not rec eive
a c op y of the or de r u

nti l D e c e mbe r 1 6, 20 04 , th e le tte r w a s n ot ma ile d un til Janu ary 24 , 2 00 5, we ll afte r the de adline for

setting a side the d ef

au l t order a

nd afte r the de adline for

filing a motion for
re h ea ri n g. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 2001.146 (mot ion for re hear ing must be f iled within 20 1 da y s af te r part y no tif ie d of ag e nc y or de r) ; 1 Te x. Ad min . Code § 1 55 .5 5( e ) ( 20 05 ) ( pa rt y may fi le motion to s et aside de fault judg ment within ten day s of hea ri n g as l o n g as dismissal, proposal for de c isi on , o r f

ina l or de r h a s n ot b e e n is su e d) ; see also 28 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 1.88 (2006) ( written response to notice of he aring ), 1.89 (2006) (what constitutes defa ult and remedies). Finally , in the letter, Willi ams’s attorne y only take s i s s u e with the addre ss the order was sent to and the lack of in f o r mati o n r e g ar d in g th e r e lati o n s h ip b e tw e e n Wi ll ia ms an d th e in d iv id

u a l w h o s ig n e d f

o r the notice of hear ing but, like Williams’s moti on, does not specif y which of the finding s or conc lusions rele vant to the re vocation of Williams’s licenses wer e in er ror. F or a ll the re a so ns g ive n, we c on c lud e that Will iams’ s mo tio n f or re he ari ngfa ile d to pr e se rv e his ri g ht t o a

pp e a l and ov e rr ule his iss ue on

a pp e a l.7 CO NC LU SION Having overr

uled Wil liams’s issue on appea l, w e aff irm the judgme nt of the district
c ourt
.

David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P atterson a nd Pury ear Affir med Filed: Jul y

21, 2006