Court Opinion

ID: 9758992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:59:10.86965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:57.868648
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
concurring.
The judgment is based upon the majority’s application of authority from other courts of appeals but fails to discuss relevant procedural differences between this case and the binding precedent from this Court, which precedent had acknowledged the authority from another court of appeals. Failure to consistently follow our precedent leads to uncertainty of the trial court and litigants and thereby increases the expense of litigation in this Court’s district. By failing to discuss the procedural difference between this Court’s precedent and the relevant differences in this case, litigants could be misled and may erroneously conclude we are silently overruling seemingly controlling precedent. We are not.
This Court has expressly held that by failing to complain to the trial court about the lack of specificity of the element on which the movant asserts that there is no-evidence, nothing is preserved for review. Watson v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 135 S.W.3d 208, 227-228 (Tex.App.-Waco 2004, no pet.) (“This Court has concluded that a nonmovant must object to a no-evidence motion which it contends does not provide adequate specificity in order to present such an issue for appellate review”) (Opinion by Justice Reyna, joined only by Justice Vance.); Fletcher v. Edwards, 26 S.W.3d 66, 72 n. 5 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. denied) (“The Fletchers’ fifth issue questions whether the no-evidence portion of Appellees’ summary judgment motion adequately identifies the element(s) of the Fletchers’ claims on which Appellees contend there is no evidence. However, they did not object to the form of Appellees’ motion in their written response. Accordingly, they failed to preserve this issue for *815our review.”) (Opinion by Chief Justice Davis, joined only by Justice Vance.); Williams v. Bank One, 15 S.W.3d 110, 117 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, no pet.) (“Williams failed to object to the form of Bank One’s motion in her written response to the motion or in any other pleading. Accordingly, we conclude that she has failed to preserve her complaint that the motion fails to specifically identify the essential elements of her counterclaims on which there is no evidence.”) (Unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Davis, joined by Justices Vance and Gray.).
The Court notes only that: “Humphrey filed a response to the motions asserting that they are deficient because they identify neither the causes of action stated by the Plaintiff nor the specific elements of the causes of action challenged.” Humphrey, the plaintiff, did far more than make these “assertions.” Humphrey filed a specific objection to the motion on this basis, citing appropriate authority to support the objection. She went on to explain in some detail why the motion, as a no-evidence motion, was defective and that it was actually a traditional motion for summary judgment because it was based on an effort to establish an affirmative defense.
But Humphrey did not stop with making the objection. She repeated her complaints, supported by her arguments, throughout the process. She obtained an adverse ruling on her objection in the trial court’s judgment. And she continued to complain about this issue in the post-judgment proceedings in the trial court.
While her pleadings do not set out the elements of her claims, a procedure which if required would greatly facilitate the presentation and review of summary judgments, and particularly no-evidence summary judgments, her objection was made, she pursued it to an adverse ruling, and she now complains about that ruling on appeal.1
With these additional comments, I join the judgment of the Court.

. The harm analysis is severely truncated in the Court’s opinion, to the point that there really is none. The harm analysis in this case, including what the result may be if this were analyzed for harm given that everyone understood the defense being asserted, is intriguing but was not briefed as such by the parties and will be left for another day.