Court Opinion

ID: 9691785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 09:10:07.278614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:13.237712
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                         TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                No. 10-23-00039-CV

WILLIAM EDMONDS AND PAMELA EDMONDS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS NEXT FRIEND ON BEHALF OF A.B., C.B., AND M.B.,
                                       Appellants
v.

MATTHEW BROWN,
                                                          Appellee

                        From the 272nd District Court
                             Brazos County, Texas
                       Trial Court No. 21-000517-CV-272

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      William and Pamela Edmonds, Individually and as next friend of A.B., C.B., and

M.B. appeal from a judgment that granted a no-evidence motion for summary judgment

as to their claims for the wrongful death of their daughter. The Edmondses argue that

the trial court erred by granting the motion for summary judgment because they

presented more than a scintilla of evidence to support their intentional tort claims, or
alternatively that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion for

continuance to complete specified discovery, and that the trial court erred in its

determination that the Edmondses could not be awarded exemplary damages on behalf

of A.B., C.B., and M.B. for the intentional tort committed against their daughter, who was

the mother of A.B., C.B., and M.B. Because we find that the no-evidence motion for

summary judgment was improperly granted in part, we reverse the judgment of the trial

court in part and remand this proceeding to the trial court for further proceedings.

       Katherine Brown died from a single gunshot wound to the head while she was

lying face down in her bed. Her husband, Matthew Brown, called 9-1-1 to report the

shooting. After an investigation by law enforcement, Katherine’s cause of death was

ruled to be by suicide.

       The Edmondses did not believe that their daughter committed suicide, believing

instead that she had been shot by her husband. Based on their investigation and belief,

the Edmondses filed a wrongful death lawsuit on their behalf and as next friend of

Katherine’s three minor children based on negligence, assault and battery, and gross

negligence. The Edmondses also included a claim for exemplary damages.

       Matthew filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment alleging that there

was no evidence of a "wrongful act, neglect, carelessness, or default" by Matthew that

caused Katherine’s death, and that the Edmondses are not entitled to exemplary

damages. The Edmondses filed a response and included affidavits by William and

Edmonds v. Brown                                                                       Page 2
Pamela, the offense report of the investigation into Katherine’s death, the pleadings from

a lawsuit filed by Matthew individually to stop a foreclosure of the marital residence

shortly before Katherine’s death, and an affidavit by the Edmondses’ attorney asking for

additional time to complete discovery in order to obtain and present additional evidence

to support their claims. Matthew objected to parts of the summary judgment evidence.

After a hearing, the trial court sustained all of Matthew’s objections to the Edmondses’

summary judgment evidence and granted Matthew’s motion without specifying the basis

for its ruling.

APPEAL OF NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS

       On appeal, the Edmondses concede they have no evidence to support their

negligence claim. The gross negligence claim, to the extent it is a separate cause of action,

is factually indistinguishable from the negligence claim. Accordingly, the trial court’s

judgment as to the negligence and gross negligence claims are affirmed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

       To defeat a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the responding party

must present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact supporting each element

contested in the motion. Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306, 310 (Tex. 2009). When

reviewing a trial court's grant of such a motion, we consider the evidence presented in

the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was rendered, crediting

evidence favorable to that party if reasonable jurors could and disregarding contrary

Edmonds v. Brown                                                                       Page 3
evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. Id. We indulge every reasonable inference

and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant's favor. Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d

477, 481 (Tex. 2015). We review a no-evidence summary judgment de novo. See Joe v. Two

Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150, 156-57 (Tex. 2004). A no-evidence summary

judgment is improperly granted if the respondent presents more than a scintilla of

probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact on each challenged element.

King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003). More than a scintilla of

evidence exists when the evidence "rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-

minded people to differ in their conclusions." Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953

S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997).

WRONGFUL DEATH

       In causes of action filed under the Wrongful Death Statute, a plaintiff must prove

a wrongful act. TEX. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 71.002(b). In this proceeding, the wrongful act

alleged is an assault and battery resulting in the death of Katherine, specifically that

Matthew shot her resulting in her death. The no-evidence motion for summary judgment

specifically alleges that there is no evidence that Brown intentionally, knowingly, or

recklessly caused bodily injury to Katherine. On appeal, Brown argues that "properly

stated, the issue is whether Appellant’s summary judgment evidence raised a genuine

dispute of material fact that Matt killed Katie."

Edmonds v. Brown                                                                    Page 4
       The Edmondses complain that the trial court erred by granting the motion for

summary judgment because they presented adequate evidence in opposition to the

motion even without considering the evidence that was excluded due to the objections

by Matthew. As explained above, on appeal the Edmondses did not challenge the claims

of negligence or gross negligence but limited their arguments to the evidence that they

contend constitutes more than a scintilla of evidence to support a finding that Matthew

intentionally shot Katherine and killed her.

       Matthew argues that the evidence presented by the Edmondses, summarized

below, is merely speculative and that there is no direct evidence that he fired the gun that

caused Katherine’s death. He also argues that it is not reasonable to infer that he

assaulted Katherine. Moreover he contends that because Katherine's death was ruled to

be a suicide and Matthew was not charged with any criminal offense related to

Katherine's death, the Edmondses must negate this alternative theory of her death.

       "An inference is not reasonable if it is susceptible to multiple, equally probable

inferences, requiring the factfinder to guess in order to reach a conclusion." Graham Cent.

Station, Inc. v. Pena, 442 S.W.3d 261, 265 (Tex. 2014). In other words, a factfinder "may not

reasonably infer an ultimate fact from 'meager circumstantial evidence which could give

rise to any number of inferences, none more probable than another.'" Hancock v. Variyam,

400 S.W.3d 59, 70-71 (Tex. 2013).

Edmonds v. Brown                                                                       Page 5
       The Edmondses argue that the summary judgment evidence regarding all the facts

and circumstances surrounding her death, when viewed in the light most favorable to

them as summarized below, were sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment,

including, if necessary to negate the alternative theory of her death, namely, suicide.

       The facts and circumstances, when viewed under the above-described standard,

included that Katherine, who had no history of depression or mental illness, was the

mother of three young children. The day before her death, Katherine found a three-day

eviction notice on their residence's door. Matthew had been solely responsible for

making the mortgage payments on the marital residence and had not made the payments

on time and had told conflicting stories about whether the payments were made.

Matthew had hired an attorney to file a lawsuit in his sole name to attempt to stop the

foreclosure two months prior to Katherine's death. When Katherine saw the foreclosure

notice, she contacted her parents who advised Katherine and Matthew to go to the district

attorney the next morning to show proof of the mortgage payments. According to the

Edmondses, Katherine had $9,000 in her personal account at the bank which would have

covered the amount of the delinquent payments.

       During the immediate investigation and afterward, Matthew gave conflicting

stories as to what transpired immediately prior to the shooting to law enforcement, which

were reflected in the offense report contained in their summary judgment response. He

told one officer he was on the couch feeding their infant child when Katherine came out

Edmonds v. Brown                                                                     Page 6
and went back into the room to take a shower immediately prior to hearing the shot.

Matthew told another officer that he was in the baby’s room when he heard the shot. He

told another officer that he and Katherine had both gotten up and discussed their plans

for the day and that Katherine informed him that she was going to take a shower when

he took the baby to feed her in the living room. 1

        The firearm was not in or near the bed where Katherine was found. Matthew

stated that after he came into the bedroom and discovered Katherine, he picked the gun

up off the bed and took it into the bathroom. He set the gun, a .357 Magnum, on the

counter and washed his hands before calling 9-1-1.

        When law enforcement arrived, they found Katherine on her bed lying on her

stomach with her head facing to the left on a pillow with the covers pulled up her back.

Katherine's left arm was bent up toward her head. Her cell phone was next to her

forehead and her right arm was up by the phone. Both hands were in a fist-like shape

with her fingers curled into her palms. The officers observed a bullet wound that had

entered in Katherine's left temple and exited out the right side into the pillow. She was

dressed only in a t-shirt and underwear.

        Katherine was right-handed and had only been observed using her right hand to

fire the weapon. The gun had been purchased for self-defense reasons. In order for

1Matthew contends that this statement was clarified later in the offense report and that he did not make
conflicting statements.
Edmonds v. Brown                                                                                 Page 7
Katherine to have fired the gunshot that killed her, she would have had to fire the gun

with her left hand.

ANALYSIS

       We find that the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the non-

movants, was sufficient for reasonable minds to differ in their conclusion as to how

Katherine’s injury was inflicted, that Matthew intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly

caused her death. Therefore, using the appropriate standard of review, we find that the

trial court erred by granting the no-evidence motion for summary judgment as to the

claim for assault and battery. We sustain issue one as to the assault and battery claim.

       Because we have found that the trial court erred, we do not reach issue two relating

to the motion for continuance to complete discovery because the issue is unnecessary to

the disposition of this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

       In their third issue, the Edmondses complain that the trial court erred by granting

the no-evidence motion for summary judgment as to the children's claims for exemplary

damages. The Edmondses had included claims for exemplary damages on their own

behalf as well as on behalf of Katherine's children in their petition. The motion for no-

evidence summary judgment was only as to William and Pamela Edmonds individually

and did not address exemplary damages on behalf of the children. The Edmondses

concede that they are not entitled to exemplary damages as parents of Katherine. See TEX.

Edmonds v. Brown                                                                     Page 8
CONST. art. XVI, § 26. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment as to exemplary damages

for the Edmondses individually is affirmed. However, the motion for no-evidence

summary judgment did not challenge the propriety of exemplary damages for the

children, who would potentially be entitled to exemplary damages. Also, because the

judgment is being reversed as to the assault and battery cause of action, we also reverse

the part of the trial court's judgment as to exemplary damages on behalf of the children.

We sustain issue three in part and overrule it in part.

CONCLUSION

        Having found that the trial court erred by granting the no-evidence motion for

summary judgment as to the assault and battery claim and exemplary damages on behalf

of Katherine's children, we reverse the judgment of the trial court as to those issues only,

affirm the trial court's judgment as to the other issues, and remand to the trial court for

further proceedings.2

                                                           TOM GRAY
                                                           Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded
Opinion delivered and filed August 23, 2023
[CV06]

2On appeal, after briefing on the merits was complete, the appellants filed a motion alleging that the trial
court was disqualified. Because on the controverted claims we are remanding this proceeding to the trial
court, the merits of the motion are best considered in the first instance by the trial court. Accordingly, the
appellants' motion to set aside the trial court's judgment is denied without prejudice to filing in the trial
court for the trial court's initial determination pursuant to the rules of civil procedure.
Edmonds v. Brown                                                                                       Page 9