Court Opinion

ID: 9776081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:18:22.747528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:34.042132
License: Public Domain

ANGELINI, Justice,
concurring.
While I agree that the summary judgment in this case requires reversal, I write separately to express my disagreement with the reasoning behind the majority’s decision. It is undisputed that a German attorney, on Hock’s behalf, responded via letter to Sala-ices’s petition. Because I believe this response constitutes an appearance, I cannot agree with the majority’s decision to reverse the summary judgment based on the fact that it was granted prior to an answer or appearance.
As the majority notes, Rule 166a(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure indicates that a claimant may not move for summary judgment before the defendant has appeared or answered. However, historically, answers and appearances have been defined quite loosely. For example, letters identifying the parties, the case, and the defendant’s current address, have consistently been deemed sufficient to prevent a no-answer default judgment. See Smith v. Lippmann, 826 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.1992); Home Sav. Of America v. Harris Co. Water Control and Improvement Dist., 928 S.W.2d 217, 218 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ). While such letters are defective answers, they are answers nonetheless. See id.
Mr. Faust, the German attorney who responded on behalf of Hock, sent a letter to the District Clerk of Guadalupe County which, in no uncertain terms, denied the allegations contained in Salaices’s petition. The letter provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Gerlinde Salaiees vs. Robert J. Hock
Cause No. 97-1025-cv
Dear Sirs,
[I]n order of our client, Mr. Robert J. Hock, home address: Birkenstrasse 12, 63762 Gobostheim / Germany, let we know, that he does not agree with the Plaintiffs Original Petition, dated August 4th, 1997.
Although the letter is not grammatically correct, it identifies the parties, the case, and the defendant’s current address. Courts have treated letters much less substantive than this as answers. See, e.g., Home Sav. of America, 928 S.W.2d at 219 (finding appearance where unsigned letter contained sender’s address, denied liability, and contained the trial court cause number); Terehkov v. Cruz, 648 S.W.2d 441, 442 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1983, no writ) (holding letter to clerk acknowledging receipt of citation sufficient appearance to prevent default judgment).
Clearly, the law would have required the letter at issue to be considered an answer if Salaiees had moved for default judgment. See Smith, 826 S.W.2d at 138; Home Sav. of America, 928 S.W.2d at 219; R.T.A. International, Inc. v. Cano, 915 S.W.2d 149, 151 *596(Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied). If such a letter is a sufficient answer for default judgment purposes, it should also constitute an answer for the purpose of allowing Salaices to file a motion for summary judgment. In other words, if a document constitutes an answer for any purpose, it should constitute an answer for all purposes. To hold otherwise, with no supporting authority, serves only to confuse and frustrate litigants and the procedural process as a whole. Furthermore, we are bound, in any circumstance, to construe pleadings liberally in favor of the pleader. Home Sav. of America, 928 S.W.2d at 218 (citing Stone v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 554 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex.1977)). Accordingly, I find no justification for holding that Mr. Faust’s letter was not an appearance or answer as contemplated by Rule 166a(a).
Because I believe there was an appearance in this case, I do not believe that the summary judgment can be reversed on the grounds put forth by the majority. However, I would nevertheless conclude that the summary judgment in this ease can not stand. Conclusions in affidavits are not competent summary judgment proof and should be disregarded. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. v. Young, 720 S.W.2d 211, 213 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ). They are inadmissible because they do not inform the fact finder of the underlying facts. Johnson v. Bethesda Lutheran Homes and Services, 935 S.W.2d 235, 239 (TexApp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied)(Hedges, J., concurring). Rather, such opinions “amount to little more than the witness choosing sides on the case outcome.” Id.
The affidavit Salaices attached in support of her motion for summary judgment offers just such conclusions. Salaices states that “one hundred percent” of the consideration given for the real property in question “was mine” and that the real estate is “one hundred percent mine.” However, Salaices offers no evidence or proof of the transaction in support of these self-serving conclusions. Accordingly, her statements are not competent to establish these facts as a matter of law. See Hidalgo v. Surety Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 487 S.W.2d 702, 703 (Tex.1972) (deeming statement that purchase was made with “valuable consideration” conclusory absent evidence of consideration); University of Texas System v. Ainsa, 823 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1992, no writ) (holding list of expenses with no proof was conclusory); Simpson v. MBank Dallas, N.A., 724 S.W.2d 102, 108 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, writ refd n.r.e.) (finding statement that guaranty of note was a “mere formality” was concluso-ry)-
Because Salaices’s statements do not constitute competent summary judgment evidence, she has faded to satisfy her burden of proving that there is no issue of material fact and that she is entitled to judgment in her favor as a matter of law. For this reason, I would reverse the summary judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.