Court Opinion

ID: 5064646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-01 09:44:44.748907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:57.174266
License: Public Domain

Kirkpatrick O'Donnell Construction Equipment Company recovered a judgment by default against Salt Water Resources, Inc. in a suit on a promissory note. Defendant Salt Water filed a motion for new trial alleging "the meritorious defense of failure of consideration." Attached to the motion is an affidavit of defendant's president stating: "Further, no consideration was received, in whole or in part by Salt Water Resources, Inc." This statement is a legal conclusion unsupported by any specific facts. See Hidalgo v. SuretySavings and Loan Association, 487 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. 1972). Consequently, it is insufficient to "set up" a meritorious defense. Ivy v. Carrell, 407 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. 1966);compare Ward v. Nava, 488 S.W.2d 736 (Tex. 1972) (where the court found sufficient facts to raise a defense).
Because of the insufficiency of the motion, the judge was not required to hear evidence, but he did so. Plaintiff presented evidence of a preexisting debt, which was sufficient consideration for the note. TEX.BUS. COM CODE ANN. Sec.3.408 (Tex.UCC) (Vernon 1968); see also West Coast Mining,Inc. v. Security National Bank of Lubbock, Texas, 442 S.W.2d 821, 822 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the motion for new trial.
Affirmed.