### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-01-00377-CV Edwin E. Al

der, Ap pellant v. Sandra Laurel and Alber tson, Snow & Laurel, L.L.P., Appellees

FROM THE

DISTRICT CO URT OF CO MAL COUNT Y, 274TH JUDICIAL

DISTRICT NO. C98-575C, HONORAB LE CHARLES R. RAMSAY, JUDGE PRESIDING Appe llantE dw in

Al der appeal s the di strict

court’s order gra nti ng a ppel l ees ’ sum mary judg ment and the court’s deni al of his m ot ion f or new trial . Alder contends the trial co ur t er re d by (1) im properly dis posin g of his cl ai

ms , as they

we r e n o t ad dr es se d in appe l l ees ’ m otion f or sum mary j udgm en t, (2 ) g ra nt ing app ellees’ no evidenc e mot ion f or su m mary j udgm en t despi te Al der’ s su m mary judg ment evidenc e in the for m of seve n inter ro gat or y answer s, a nd ( 3) gr ant ing summary jud gment on clai m s n ot chal l enged i n the su m mary j udgm en t motion. We wi

ll reverse the tria

l co ur t ’s judg ment and reman

d the cause for furt her proce edin gs. BACKGROUND In Ma y 1 997, A l der was i nvol ved i n a car acci

dent. In Septemb er, Al der hi red appel le e Sa nd r a L au r el, a la wye rin t he firm o f Albe r t so n, Sn o w & La ur el, L. L. P. , t o r ep r es en t him in h i s p er son

al i n j ur y ac ti on ag ai n st t he driv er. Al der all

eges the parties

si gned a conti

ngen cy fee2

agr eement ( t he “a gr ee men t ”) in r et ur n fo rLa ur el’ s o r al p romi se to l oan A l der $ 90 00 . A

di spute ar ose wh en La ur el re f us ed to l oan A l der the m

on ey , a n d th ey ter m i n ate d th e a gr eemen t. Al der fil ed s uit aga inst L aur el seek ing a de clara t or y judgment t hat t he co nt ingent fee ar ra ngement was unen

forceabl e. Alder cla

im ed that Laurel b

reached the f

ee agr eement by

(1) re fusing to f

un d th e l oan ; (2 ) f ai l i n g to d i sc l ose h er con f l i cts of i n te re st , t her eby invali

dat ing t he ag re em en t; (3) term i na tin g the agree men t vol unta ri l y an d f or caus e; and (4) pe

rf ormi ng i nf erior work on hi s case. Alder also so ught a de clara t or y judgment t o p re vent La ure l f rom col l ec ti ng a f eef rom t he proceeds of hi s personal in jury sui t. Fin al ly, A ld er alleged t hat Lau re l violat ed t he De cep t ive Trade Practices A

ct (“DTPA”) t hro ugh he r misre pr ese nt at ions and u nco nscio nable ac t ions r ega rd ing t he loan agreem ent, as well a s her sub sequent ref usal to wi thd raw f rom repres en tation. A l de r di

d n ot assert any cause of action agai

nst Laurel based upon n

egl ige nce. In Marc h 19 99, the

tria l courtsig ne d a n a gr ee d o r de rse ve r ing Ald er ’s cla ims agains t Laurel f rom th ose ag ai ns t the de f

endan t dri ver i n the pers onal

i nj ury sui t. In Feb ruary 2001, Laurel fi le d a no evidenc e mot ion fo r su mmary judgment as to Al der’s clai ms agai nsther and t he firm arising o ut o f negligence , whi ch

the tri al court gran

ted. STANDARD OF REVIEW Ru le 166 a(i

) al l owsthe pa rty wi thou t the bu rde n of p roof to m

ove f or sum mary judg ment on the ground that t he nonm ovan t lacks evidenc e t o s upp or t an es sent ial element o f the nonm ovan t’s cl ai m . Tex. R. Ci

v. P. 166a (i ). Un

de r a n o ev i de nc e m oti on, the m ova nt c an f i l e f or sum mary j udgm en t wi thout tend

eri ng a ny proof. Id. Th e n

on mov an t th en h as th e b ur den to pr ese nt3

enough evi dence to take t he case

to the jur

y . Id. I f the nonmo vant fails to pr ese nt mor e t han a sc int illa of ev i de nc e, th e c ourt m us t gra nt th e m oti on f or sum mary j udgm en t. Jackson v. Fiesta Ma rt , 979 S. W. 2d 68 , 70 - 71 ( T ex . Ap p. —A us t in 1998, n o pet.) . Mor e than

a s ci nti l l a of ev i den ce ex i sts wh en th e ev i den ce

ri se s to a l evel

that would enab le

reasonabl

e and f ai r-mi nded pe o ple t o diffe rin t he ir conc l usi ons. See id.; Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner , 953 S. W.2 d 70 6, 711 (T ex. 1997) , cert. denied , 525 U.S. 101 7; Mansf ield v . C. F. Bent Tree

Apartmen t Ltd. P’shi

p , 37 S.W.3d 145, 149 (Tex. A

pp.—A usti n 20 01, n o pet.). A no ev id ence sum

ma r y j udgme

nt is essen tial ly a pretrial directed ve

rdict, and we ap ply t he sam e l egal su fficie nc y st an da r d in r ev iew ing a n o ev ide nc e s umma r y jud gme nt as we ap ply in revi ewi ng a di rected verdi ct. Jackson , 979 S.W.2d at 70. Like a directed verdict, t hen, the task of th e a pp el l ate cou rt i s to det er mine whet her t he plaint iff has p ro duc ed a ny

evidenc e o f pro bat ive force to rai se f

act i ssues on

the m aterial question s pre sen

ted. Id. The appel

la te court mus

t consider all o f t he ev ide nc e in t he ligh t mo st fav o r ab le to the pa rty ag ai ns t whom the n o evi den ce s um mary judg ment was rendered; ev er y re as on ab l e i

n f er en ce m us t b e i n du l ge d i n f av or of th e n on mov an t, and an y doubts resol ve d i n i ts f av or. Id. A moti on f or s um mary j udg men t m us t sta nd or f al l on t he gr o un ds ex pr es sly

presented in the mot ion. T ex. R. Civ. P. 166 a(i); see als o McConnell v. Souths ide Indep. Sc h. Dist. , 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Te x. 199 3). Gra nti ng a m oti on f or s um mary j udg men t on a ca us e of ac ti on n ot addressed i n the m otion constitutes

rev ersi bl e error. See Mafrige v. Ross , 866 S.W.2d 590, 591 (T ex. 1993) .4 DISCUSSI ON In hi s f irst i ssue, appel

la nt contends that the trial

court erred in grant ing Laurel’s m oti on f or s um mary j udg men t an d i n d en y i ng hi s m oti on f or n ew tri al be ca us e L au rel ’s moti on f or sum mary judgm ent was bas ed

on cl ai m s n ot all eged i n a ppel l an t’s ori gi na l pl eadi ngs . A l de r’ s p eti

ti on re qu es ts decl

aratory rel i ef and al l eges a vi ola tion of the DTPA . Howev er, La ure l ’s moti on f or sum mary judg ment does not chall

enge the cl

ai ms al le ged i n hi s pl eadi ngs bu t inst ea d a dd r es se s o nly a ne glig en ce cla im, a theory of recovery not alleged i

n A lde r’s petiti on. The substance of the moti on st at es, “An

essential elem ent of plai ntif f’s cause of acti on is that he must prove that he sustain

ed an i nj ury and damages proxim

ately caused b

y def endant’s negligence. In t he inst ant case, pl ai ntif f h as no evi den ce th at pl ai

nti f f sus tai ne d an i nj ury and/or damage s on the occasi on in question.” ( E mph as is adde d.) Al

der as sertsthat as

Lau rel ’smotion

f or sum mary judgm ent is li mi ted to negl

ige nce, it does not ad dr es s his DTPA and dec la rato ry j udgme

nt cla im s. Thus, Al

der contends the trial

court erred in gra nti ng La ure l ’s moti on f or s um mary j udg men t ba se d on l y on a c au se of ac ti on no t ple ad ed in his pet itio n. In

resp onse , Lau

rel argue s sh

e “ i nadve rtentl y use [d] t he w or d neg ligence” in the m oti on, but that she a lso st at ed inthe m otion that sh e was rel y i ng on al l pl eadi ngs as s um mary judg ment evi

dence. Laurel

ma in tains that Alde r had not ice o f the gr ou nds fo r su mmary judgment and that Alder pr od uce d no evidenc e r aising a g enuine issu e o f mate rial fact as t o t he element s o f his ca us es of ac ti on i n ord er to de f ea t h er n o ev i den ce moti on f or sum mar y j udgm en t. The Te xas S upr eme Co ur t has he ld t hat judg ment ca nn ot be gra nte d on grou nd s n ot al le ged i n th e m otion f or sum mary j udgm en t. McConne ll , 85 8 S. W.2d at 341 ; Mafrige , 866 S.W.2d1 We n ot e that the Fourt eenth Court of Appeals has further excl

uded f rom con si de rati on any grounds s et ou

t i n a docum en t that i s i nc orporated b

y ref eren ce i nto the m

otion f or sum mary 5 at 591 . S ome c ou rt s o f app eals have st rict ly i nt er pr et ed t his holding t o mea n t hat , e ven t hou gh a cause of action m ay not be viabl

e, a party m

ay obtain s umm ary j udgme

nt only on those cau ses o f act ion exp re ssly addr esse d in t he su mmary judgment motion . See, e.g. , Smith v. Atlantic Rich field Co. , 927 S.W .2d 85, 8 8-89 (Tex. A pp.—H ouston [1s

t Di st.] 19 96 , wr it denied) ; Southw ester n Clinic of Bone & Joint Diseases v. Farmers Ins. Group , 850 S.W .2d 75 0, 7 54 (Tex . A

pp .—C orp usCh

ri sti 1993, no w rit) ; Weaver v. Stewart , 825 S. W.2 d 18 3, 184 -8 5 ( Te x. App.—Houston [14t h Di st.] 1992, wr it denied) ; see

also Watkins v. Hammer

man & Gainer , 814 S.W.2d 86 7, 86 9 ( T ex . Ap p. —A us t in 1991, n o wri t) (j udgm en t mu st stan

d or f al l on groun ds e xpr ess l y al l eged i n the m otion ). T his Court adheres to a strict in terpret ation of Rul

e 166a(i) wh

ic h sp ec ifica lly

requires th at a n o ev i den ce moti on f or sum mar y j udgm en t sta te the el em

ents on whi

ch there is no evi dence. “[A] party

wi thout pres en

tin g sum mary j udgm en t evi den ce m ay move f or sum mary judg ment o n t he gr ou nd tha t the re i s n o ev i de nc e of one or m ore essen tial el em ents of a cl

ai m or def ense on wh

ic h an adverse party would h

ave t he b ur de n o f pr oof

at tr i al . Th e m oti on m us t sta te th e e l em en ts a s to whi ch there is no evi dence.” Tex. R. Ci

v. P. 16 6a(i). E ve n t ho ug h a mo va nt may file a b r ief in suppor t o f the m

ot ion, the movant must

b e c ar ef ul to i n cl ud e a l l gr oun dsf or sum mar y j udgm en t in the mo ti on it

se lf. (Em pha si s ad ded.) McConne ll , 858 S.W .2d at 33 9-42. The suprem e court has ex pr es sly hel d that a m oti on fo rsu mmar y jud gme nt mus t it se lf pr es en t t he gr o un ds up o n w hic h it is ma de, and the mova

nt may not rely on bri efs

or summ

ary j udgme

nt evi dence i n l ie u of that re qui re men t. Id. at 341. 1 Thus , a

trial court consi derin

g a m ot ion f or summ ary j udgme

nt is restrictedj udgm

en t. See Coa

stal Ce ment Sand

v. Firs t Inters ta te Cre dit , 956 S. W.2 d 56 2, 566 (T ex. App.—Houston [14th

Di st.] 1997 , wri

t deni ed). 6 to the is sues rai sed

i n the m otion , resp onse , and sub seq uen t repl i es. Stiles v. Resolution Trust Co. , 867 S.W .2d 24, 2 6 (Tex . 1993) .

In h er moti on f or sum mar y j udgm en t, L au re l sta t ed t hat she w ou ld re ly on t he ple adi ngs as sum

ma ry j udgme nt evi dence. Laurel

contends that statement was suff ici ent to address t he el em ents of appel

la nt’s DTPA an

d decl arator y j udgme

nt cla im s. When f

il in g a no evi

den c e m oti on for summary judg ment, t he movi ng party rel

ie s on t he plea dings a nd allege s t hat t he o ppo sing pa rty ca nn ot pos si bl y es tab l i sh one of the el em en ts of i ts pleade d cau se of

action. See Te x. R . C iv. P. 166 a( i). H ow ever , a par t y canno t subs t itu t e t he nonmo vant ’s plea ding f or th e m ova nt’ s ob l i ga

ti on to alle ge in he rmo t io n t he sp ec ific basis o n which she i s en titl ed to j udgm

en t. See McC

onnell , 858 S.W.2d at 34 1. La ur el c an no t su bst it ut e h er ch alle ng e t o o ne ca us e o f ac t io n fo ran o t he rmer ely by ref erri ng to the orig i na l pl eadi ngs . See id. While the parties do not raise the i ssue, we note that wh ere the groun ds f or sum mary judg ment are

not s uf f i ci en tl y sp ec i f i c or ar e unc lear, t he non

movan t mu st spe ci al

l y ex cept to the f

orm of th e m oti on an d g i v e th e m ov an t an opp ortu n i ty t o a mend befo re t he no nmovant can r aise t he com plai nt on a ppea l . Id. Ho we ve r , wh en a mo t io n fo rsu mmar y jud gme nt cle ar ly pr es en t s c er t ain grounds butnot o thers, a no n-movant i s not required to speci al l y ex cept. Id. at 342 ; see als o Roberts v. Southw est Tex. Methodist Hosp. , 811 S.W.2d 14 1, 1 46 (Tex . A pp .—S an A n toni o 19 91 , no wr

i t) (“When a motion for summ

ary j udgment asserts gro unds A an d B , i t ca nn ot be uph el d on grounds C and D , w hich wer e no t asse rt ed, even if t he su mmary judgment pr oo f supp or t s t hem and t he2 In appel la nt’s second an

d third i ssues, he

contends that he provi ded su f f i ci en t ev i den ce to av o id a no evidenc e su mmary judgment and t hat t he t rial co ur t , in gr ant ing summary jud gment re lief, exceeded the scope o f Laurel ’s m ot ion. We need n

ot address either of these issues. 7 r es po nd ing pa r t y did not e xc ep t to the

moti on. ”). A l de r di

d n ot f i l e a sp ec i al exce ption to the f orm of Lau rel ’smotion . Howev

er, Al der’s response to the motion f or summ ary j udgme

nt cle arly stated t hat Lau re l’s mot ion wa s base d o n a ne gli gen ce c l ai m , and was

there f ore inconsistent with Alder’s DTPA ac ti on a nd req ue st f orde cla r at o r y re lief. Up o n no t ice o f t his defi ci ency in the motion, Laurel had an opport uni

ty to amen

d her sum ma ry j udgme nt motion to correct the mi stake, but fai

le d to do so. Be ca us e th e m oti on re l i ed on a c au se of ac ti on n ot b rou gh

t by the p la in tif f i n hi s origi nal ple adi ngs, i t should n ot have been

granted. Laurel argues f or t he f irst tim e on appeal

that Al der ha d i nsuff i ci ent proof of

DTPA dam ages an d th at hi s cl ai m s v i ol atethe Statu te of Frau ds . La

ure l f ai l ed to am en d her m oti on f or sum mary judgm ent to incl ude these contentions

when she was gi ven the opportun

i ty. La ure l ca nn ot raisefor the fi

rst t im e on appeal

al le ged defi

ci enci es i n A lde r’s DTPA an

d de cl arator y j ud gment clai ms. T ex . R. Ap p. P. 33 . 1. La ur el’ s mo t io n fo r su mma ry judgmen t failed to a ddre ss Alder’s cla ims for reli

ef pu r su an t t o t he DT PA an d h is action f or decl aratory j udgm en t, and thus sum mary judg ment shoul d not hav e b een gran ted. See Mans

field v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. , 40 S.W.3d 528, 532 (T ex. App.—Houston [14th Di st.] 2000 , pet. di sm ’d b

y agr.) (b ec au se

moti on f ai l ed to ad dr es s c laims in pl ai nti f f ’spl eadi ngs sum mary j udgm en t was i m proper). Ac co r di ng ly, we sustain appell ant’s fi rst issue an d do no t reac h his second and third iss ues. 28 CONCLU SION Bec aus e t he t rial co ur t er re d in gr ant ing summary jud gment on causesof ac ti on n ot addressed in the motion, w e sust ain appell ant’s fi rst issue and reverse and reman d the cause t o t he trial court for further pro ceedings.

Mari ly n A boussie, Chief J

ustice Bef ore Chi ef J

ustice A boussie, Justices

B. A. Sm ith an d Puryear Reversed a

nd Rem anded File d: February

22, 2002 Publish