Opinion ID: 4113199
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plea was untimely.

Text: Moreover, even if the appellate record were sufficient to enable review, Appellants did not timely preserve the issue. A plea in abatement must be raised in a timely manner or it is waived. Bluebonnet, 618 S.W.2d at 84 (noting that Texas law aligns with the “numerous federal cases[,] . . . cases from other jurisdictions,” and “the majority trend in this 83 Appellants’ Brief at 32–37. 34 country . . . to require that dilatory pleas be timely raised or they are waived”). “[A] court may examine the equities of the situation in deciding whether a plea in abatement is timely filed,” and will consider a plea untimely if the party delays filing or actively participates in the litigation while aware of the facts supporting a plea in abatement. Howell v. Mauzy, 899 S.W.2d 690, 698 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994, writ denied) (holding plea in abatement untimely where party delayed several months with awareness of the facts supporting a plea in abatement); Bluebonnet, 618 S.W.2d at 84 (holding plea in abatement untimely where party delayed for several years). For example, in Bluebonnet Farms, Inc. v. Gibraltar Sav. Ass’n, Bluebonnet Farms sued Gibraltar in 1975 for breaching an agreement to loan Bluebonnet $1.5 million for real estate development. 618 S.W.2d at 82. Gibraltar participated in the suit for four years before amending its answer to allege that Bluebonnet lacked the capacity to sue. Id. Gibraltar then filed a motion for summary judgment on the capacity issue, arguing that Bluebonnet could not correct the problem because the statute of limitations had expired. Id. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the Houston Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Gibraltar had not timely asserted Bluebonnet’s capacity. Id. The court noted that Gibraltar was actively engaged in the suit for four years without mentioning the capacity issue, and had no reason for its delay other than 35 that “its defense of limitations would not be good if it had apprised appellant of this complaint earlier.” Id. at 84. “The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, (including the special purpose of a plea in abatement) are designed to aid the speedy disposition of litigation on its merits,” and “Texas courts have . . . denied the filing of a plea in abatement where it was not timely filed or where it would work an injustice to the plaintiff by forever barring him from a suit on the merits.” Id. at 83–84. Gibraltar’s delay thus waived its complaint regarding capacity. Id. at 84. Here, Appellants filed their Plea in Abatement more than eight years after the Garzas’ initial bill of review.84 In the motion, Appellants claimed that there were indispensable defendants who had not been added to the case.85 By the time the plea was filed however, the statute of limitations barred the Garzas from joining the omitted defendants.86 Appellants thus attempted to use the same tactic as Gibraltar, participating in the suit for years before filing a dilatory plea so that the plaintiff would be unable to correct the alleged error due to the statute of limitations. See Bluebonnet, 618 S.W.2d at 83–84. In fact, Appellants’ delay and waiver were even more egregious than that of Gibraltar. Appellants waited twice as long as Gibraltar to file their Plea in Abatement—eight years rather than four—and delayed another eleven months after 84 CR23 (Original Petition for Bill of Review, filed October 26, 2005), 85 (Plea in Abatement or Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss for Misjoinder, filed November 7, 2013). 85 CR85. 86 CR147–56 (Garzas’ response to Appellants’ Plea); see also CR142 (Appellants’ assertion of statute of limitations). 36 filing the Plea before seeking a ruling.87 By the time Appellants finally secured a ruling regarding abatement, the parties were only weeks away from trial.88 Thus, as in Bluebonnet, Appellants’ delay waived the issue.