Court Opinion

ID: 9676265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:19:33.921667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:46.180927
License: Public Domain

*925GAULTNEY, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur only in the vacating of the summary judgment; I would vacate and remand the cause to permit an abatement to afford an opportunity to amend pleadings. I respectfully dissent in all other respects.
First, the lack of legal authority to sue is not an affirmative defense, if by affirmative defense the majority means that defendant has the burden of proof on the issue after a verified denial is filed. True, a verified denial of plaintiffs capacity to sue must be filed by defendant or the issue is waived; but the pleading requirement does not mean defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of plaintiffs legal authority to sue. If the denial of capacity to sue is pleaded by defendant and properly verified, as in this case, the issue is joined. Freedman v. Briarcroft Property Owners, Inc., 776 S.W.2d 212, 215 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, writ denied) (Filing of verified denial of “lack of capacity” places the issue before the trial court.). Plaintiff then has the burden to prove she has legal capacity to sue.1 See generally Coastal Liquids Transp., L.P. v. Harris County Appraisal Dist., 46 S.W.3d 880 (Tex.2001).
Secondly, the question before us is not whether appellee owes money; that issue will ultimately have to be determined on the merits between the proper parties.2 The issue here is simply a question of who has legal authority to sue appellee to require payment of the life insurance proceeds. If owed, is the life insurance money to be paid to the designated beneficiaries or does appellant, a co-debtor on the purchase contract, have legal authority to sue for the policy proceeds in her individual capacity? Generally, the insured’s estate may sue or be sued only in the name of the estate’s legal representative. See Price v. Estate of Anderson, 522 S.W.2d 690, 691 (Tex.1975). Since appellant was not designated as a beneficiary on the insurance form, and has not shown that she represents the beneficiary estate, I believe she has not shown her legal authority to sue under the life insurance policy.
When it appears a plaintiff lacks legal authority to sue, I believe the appropriate procedure is to abate the case and afford the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her pleadings. See Lighthouse Church of Cloverleaf v. Texas Bank, 889 S.W.2d 595, 600 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied); see also Meisler v. Bankers Capital Corp., 668 S.W.2d 828, 830 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, no writ).3 I *926therefore believe the trial court, erred in granting a take-nothing summary judgment. I would reverse and remand with instructions to abate the lawsuit so that plaintiff will have the opportunity to amend her pleadings to show her legal authority, if any, to sue. If she cannot make such a showing after being given a reasonable time to do so, the case should be dismissed without prejudice.

.An affirmative defense is "one of confession and avoidance.” Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203, 212 (Tex. 1996). A sworn denial of plaintiff's legal capacity is not a confession of anything, but rather is a denial. I believe legal capacity is better viewed as an element of the plaintiff's case that is presumed unless a verified denial is filed. The verified denial places the burden on plaintiff to prove her legal authority to sue. I respectfully disagree with the majority’s labeling the denial as an affirmative defense, and also with those courts that have assigned the same label to the verified denial of legal capacity. See First Southern Trust Co. v. Szczepanik, 880 S.W.2d 10, 15 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1993), rev’d on other grounds, 883 S.W.2d 648 (Tex.1994) (referring to legal capacity as affirmative defense); Martin v. First Republic Bank, Fort Worth, N.S., 799 S.W.2d 482, 488 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1990, writ denied) (calling lack of capacity an affirmative defense).

. My working assumption is that a temporary policy was in effect at the time of the insured's death; the insurance application form indicates an "effective date” prior to the death.

. But in Coastal Liquids, 46 S.W.3d 880, the Texas Supreme Court dealt with a capacity to sue issue presented to the trial court by summary judgment. The Court however did not *926appear to address directly the generally appropriate procedural vehicle for determining the issue of legal capacity to sue.