Court Opinion

ID: 9772426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:17:25.532648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:44.248528
License: Public Domain

CADENA, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The judgment should be affirmed because appellant failed to prove that the failure to answer was not the result of conscious indifference but was due to a mistake or accident.
The record reflects that the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s motion for new trial. Appellee had filed a response to the motion and had specifically denied appellant’s allegations that the failure to answer was not the result of conscious indifference. At the hearing appellant presented no testimony, although ap-pellee presented evidence that the procedures followed by Emmett and Chandler in this case reflected a conscious indifference. Under these circumstances, the affidavit of Couto, relied on by the majority opinion,
is not evidence, as distinguished from the situation where no evidentiary hearing is afforded.... [W]hen a hearing is held on a motion to set aside a default judgment and to grant a new trial, the movant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his failure to answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, but rather was due to accident or mistake.
Reedy Co., Inc. v. Garnsey, 608 S.W.2d 755, 757 (Tex.1980).
Since appellant presented no testimony, the trial court did not err in refusing to set aside the default judgment and grant a new trial.