Court Opinion

ID: 9671491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:37:37.091341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:10.257079
License: Public Domain

HEDGES, Justice,
dissenting on rehearing.
Pennington filed a motion entitled “plea to the jurisdiction” in the Texas declaratory judgment action, urging that the suit be dismissed for failure of subject matter jurisdiction. The majority cannot get past the style of the motion.
“The legal effect of a pleading in Texas is not determined by its style or name, but by its contentions and purpose.” Guerrero v. Standard Alloys Mfg. Co., 598 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.); accord Hodge v. Smith, 856 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). Although it is styled “plea to the jurisdiction,” this motion is in substance a motion for summary judgment based on the trial court’s lack of authority to hear the case premised on Radish’s unauthorized use of the Declaratory Judgment Act. Tex.R.Civ.P. 71; see Nichols v. Prejean, 673 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1984, no writ) (holding that “[t]he styling of the plea is not controlling,” and treating a pleading styled “Plea in Abatement” as a plea to the jurisdiction). Clearly, this issue is a question of law appropriate for summary judgment disposition.
The majority opinion is a textbook example of elevating form over substance. I would treat the motion as a motion for summary judgment.
Furthermore, we can reform the trial court’s judgment to reflect a grant of a motion for summary judgment rather than a grant of a plea to the jurisdiction. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 80 allows us to “modify the judgment of the court below by correcting or reforming it[.]” Tex.R.App.P. 80(b)(2). Courts of appeals do this when the situation warrants. See, e.g., Harris County Mun. Util. Dist. No. 48 v. Mitchell, 915 S.W.2d 859 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.], 1995, n.w.h.). We should do it here.
The real issue here is whether a declaratory judgment was appropriate in this case. To reverse the trial court’s judgment based on the style of the motion is the height of absurdity. It is doubtful that the parties will recognize their own ease since they argued the merits both at the trial court level and on appeal, not an irremediable technical flaw.
I would reform the trial court’s judgment, and as reformed, affirm.