Court Opinion

ID: 9681483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:51:20.454814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:34.185129
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
On March 14, 1985, this Court entered an order affirming the judgment of the trial court. This order was in response to an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of appellees.
On Motion for Rehearing, appellant reasserts that the judgment should be reversed and remanded for a trial on the merits because appellees failed to prove lack of fraud. In conjunction with this motion for rehearing, appellant has filed a motion to file supplemental transcript containing the Defendant’s (appellant’s) Original Answer, Counterclaim and Cross-Action, which pleading was requested to be included, but was “inadvertently omitted in the transcript filed in this Court.”
Appellant contends that this omitted pleading is material for a proper review by this Court because such pleading will show that appellant affirmatively pled fraud as a defense to appellees’ cause of action for specific performance. Additionally, appellant contends that his original answer, counterclaim and cross-action should be included by supplemental transcript filed in this Court because such pleading is sufficient to raise issues of fact as to the existence of fraud, as alleged in his response to the motion for summary judgment. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 428.
We recognize that counsel for appellant filed “Defendant Charles Vartan Walker’s First Amended Request For Transcript,” in which he requested the clerk of the trial court to include the pleading in question in the transcript to be filed in this Court. Even though counsel made the proper request, it is the attorney’s responsibility to see that the proper papers are filed with the Court of Appeals, not the clerk who fails to perform his or her proper duties. Additionally, we find that the omission of appellant’s original answer has no material effect on the disposition of this appeal because pleadings themselves, even if verified, do not constitute summary judgment evidence. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1979); Hidalgo v. Surety Savings & Loan Ass’n, 462 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.1971); Miller v. Soliz, 648 S.W.2d 734 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no writ). Appellant’s pleadings would not serve to raise a fact issue on each and every element of the affirmative defense of fraud as is required.
Appellant’s motion to file a supplemental transcript is denied. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
BENAVIDES and DORSEY, JJ., not participating.