Court Opinion

ID: 9675721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:03:44.270619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:37.926976
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
JUNELL, Justice.
In his motion for rehearing appellee Allan Scheltz has urged this Court to affirm the entire cause on the basis of Tex.R.Civ.P. 166-A as amended effective January 1, 1978, and the recent Texas Supreme Court opinion of The City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1979). Appellee contends that because appellant filed no written response to appel-lee’s motion for summary judgment, he has waived those issues on appeal.
Appellant filed no written response to appellee’s motion, but he timely filed an amended petition setting forth new and distinct causes of action against appellee. Ap-pellee’s summary judgment proof that res judicata barred appellant’s action did not address the new cause of action for breach of warranty of title. The City of Houston case cited by appellee explains that the movant must still establish his entitlement to a summary judgment on the issues expressly presented to the trial court by proving all essential elements of his cause of action or defense as a matter of law. The non-movant’s failure to answer cannot supply by default the proof necessary to establish the movant’s right. The non-movant needs to have filed no answer or response to the motion to contend on appeal that the grounds presented to the trial court by the movant’s motion are insufficient as a matter of law to support the summary judgment. 589 S.W.2d at 678.
Appellee’s motion and proof addressing only the res judicata defense is not legally sufficient to prevail against appellant’s new causes of action. The trial court’s judgment attempting to dispose of the entire case on that basis cannot stand, and amended rule 166-A does not foreclose appellant’s right to appeal on that ground.
Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.