Opinion ID: 6109814
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Twins' Defamation Claim

Text: The live petition states: [Grandfather] defamed Plaintiffs by misrepresenting that [Mother] had superior parenting skills and [Father] was a 'nut' and other untrue and derogatory statements. The trial court rendered judgment for the twins based on its conclusion that Grandfather alleg[ed] that they were victims of child abuse by [Father] and were subject to brainwashing by [Father]. Grandfather argues the trial court erred because the judgment does not conform to the pleadings. 44 The court of appeals agreed, as do we. Pleadings must give fair notice of the nature and basic issues so the opposing  party can prepare a defense. 45 When, as here, no special exception is made, we liberally construe the pleadings in the pleader's favor. 46 Even so, a liberal construction does not require a court to read into a petition what is plainly not there. 47 The live pleading specifically referred to Grandfather's statements regarding Mother's and Father's parenting abilities. It mentions nothing about the twins. Even liberally construing the pleadings, Grandfather did not have fair notice that the twins were accusing of him of defamation based on naming them as victims of abuse and amenable to brainwashing. The twins argue the petition's reference to Plaintiffs (as opposed to one plaintiff) and other untrue and derogatory statements is sufficiently broad to include the claim as construed by the trial court. We disagree. Though every fact need not be pleaded, we look to what can reasonably be inferred from what is specifically stated. 48 When a pleader provides both general and specific allegations, the specific controls, and the pleader cannot rely on the general allegations to expand the scope of the claim. 49 The pleaded defamation claim is thus limited to statements regarding Father, not the twins. The trial court's judgment accordingly does not conform to the pleadings and is invalid. 50 We reject any argument that Grandfather waived this argument by failing to lodge special exceptions. Special exceptions are designed to provide notice of pleading defects and allow the pleader to cure the defect. 51 The petition here was not defective but pleaded a specific theory of defamation. Grandfather was entitled to rely on that pleaded theory and had no reason to specially except. 52 The twins point to statements relating to them in prior pleadings and hearings as showing Grandfather had notice they were asserting claims against him based on the abuse and brainwashing statements. Assuming their interpretation of those statements is correct, they are irrelevant. Amended pleadings supersede prior pleadings, and any claim not carried forward in an amended pleading is deemed dismissed. 53 Finally, the twins claim the issue was tried by consent when Grandfather did not object to admission of his full statement to DFPS. Trial by consent can cure lack of pleading, 54 but an issue is not  tried by consent merely because evidence regarding it is admitted. 55 We must examine the record not for evidence of the issue, but rather for evidence of trial of the issue. 56 Grandfather's statements to DFPS were relevant to other issues in the trial, such as negligence and assistance of a Family Code violation. The doctrine of trial by consent does not apply when the evidence of an unpleaded matter is relevant to the pleaded issues because it would not be calculated to elicit an objection. 57