Court Opinion

ID: 9667858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:56:37.341728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:41.215716
License: Public Domain

BRADY, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Although no statement of facts was brought up from the hearing below, I believe the relators have shown that no substantial rights will be abridged by the granting of the requested legislative continuance. The real party-in-interest, Texa-na National Bank opposed relators’ motion for continuance on the grounds that certain property belonging to the Bank was being dissipated by relators. However, the plaintiff’s original petition, filed by the Bank in this action seeks only a recovery of money damages. Its prayer reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that:
1. Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein;
2. On final hearing hereof, Plaintiff have judgment against Defendants for $215,552.50;
3. Reasonable attorney’s fees;
4. All costs of Court;
*8685. Post-judgment interest at the legal rate on the total amount of the judgment from date of judgment until paid; and
6. Such other and further relief at law or in equity to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
This prayer for relief does not assert rights in any particular property or funds. The only relief for which the plaintiff would be entitled upon a favorable judgment in this case would be the money damages, costs and attorney’s fees requested. While the property the Bank asserts could be dissipated may be part of the transaction on which this suit was based, the trial court would not be authorized to make an order with respect to that property under this prayer of relief.
A legislative continuance under Tex.Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 30.003 (1986) is generally mandatory except when the non-movant demonstrates that a substantial existing right will be abridged by delay in the trial of the case. Waites v. Sondock, 561 S.W.2d 772, 776 (Tex.1977). Although the order denying relators’ motion for legislative continuance specifically finds that substantial rights will be abridged, the Bank has not requested any relief under this cause of action which could be prejudiced by the sale of these assets. Indeed, it is hard for me to conceive of a situation where a plaintiff seeking merely money damages could have substantial rights prejudiced by a legislative continuance as there are certainly other remedies available to prevent dissipation of assets pending litigation, i.e., temporary restraining orders and injunctions. The ordinarily mandatory legislative continuance has only been denied when there was no other adequate remedy at law. See Waites v. Sondock, supra, at nt. 2 (right to child support could not be enforced by any other means); Condovest Corp. v. John Street Builders, 662 S.W.2d 138, 141 (Tex.App.1983, no writ) (contract for sale of real estate to lapse).
I would hold that, given the relief requested by the Bank, denial of relators’ motion for a legislative continuance was an abuse of discretion.