Court Opinion

ID: 9771183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:36:07.201765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:26.694733
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority on all aspects of its opinion, notice of the summary judgment hearing and the applicability of Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124 (1939).
NOTICE OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT- HEARING
The majority initially tries to justify its holding by stating: “notice to appellant of the summary judgment hearing was essentially moot as appellant was legally precluded from introducing any evidence controverting the deemed admissions. The trial court was essentially performing a ministerial act in granting the summary judgment motion.” This argument, that since no defense was available, a retrial is useless since it would only result in a rendition of the same judgment on retrial, thus no harm has occurred, was rejected as untenable in Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 108 S.Ct. 896, 99 L.Ed.2d 75 (1988) (quoted by the majority). Contrary to the majority, I do not believe “... Peralta is completely distinguishable....”
Next, the majority justifies its affirmance by finding constructive notice based upon the attempted deliveries of the motion for summary judgment and the notice of hearing because “the intended recipient engaged in instances of selective acceptance/refusal of certified mail relating to the case.” However, the majority cites no cases to buttress this finding or conclusion. The majority must rely upon this constructive notice theory because the evidence is uncontroverted that appellant did not receive notice of the summary judgment hearing prior to the judgment being granted. Not only did appellant’s attorney testify to that fact, appellee admitted it by attaching a copy of the returned envelope marked “Unclaimed”.
The certificate of service of the motion for summary judgment states that on the 27th day of June, 1991, it “was deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid certified mail, return receipt requested and/or was sent via telephonic document transfer and/or was messengered to” appellant’s attorney. Tex.R.Civ.P. 21a sets up a presumption that notice of a trial setting was duly received; this presumption “has the force of a rule of law”; however, this presumption may be rebutted by an offer of proof that the notice was not received. Cliff v. Huggins, 724 S.W.2d 778, 780 (Tex.1987). There is no notice of hearing in the record before us1; therefore the record on its face shows noncompliance with Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a. Because summary judgment is a harsh remedy, the notice provisions of Rule 166a are strictly construed. Williams v. City of Angleton, 724 S.W.2d 414, 417 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Williams v. Carpentier, 767 S.W.2d 953, 954 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1989, no writ).
Several cases support the position that notice is essential. Rozsa v. Jenkinson, 754 S.W.2d 507 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1988, no writ), was a writ of error case where the non-movant was sent notice of summary judgment to the wrong address. Proper notice to the non-movant of the summary judgment hearing is a prerequisite to summary judgment. See Gulf Refining Co. v. A.F.G. Management 34 Ltd., 605 S.W.2d 346, 349 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In Rozsa, the error appeared on the record in that the wrong address was typed on the notice so writ of error requirements were met and the summary judgment was reversed. Wavell v. Caller-Times Pub. Co., 809 S.W.2d 633 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied), was a summary judgment case reversed because of no proper *104notice of the hearing date. Tafollo v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 738 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ) was a summary judgment appeal through writ of error. The court held the record did “not contain any evidence or documents to reflect that appellant received notice of the date set for hearing on appellee’s motion for summary judgment.”
THE “CRADDOCK” REQUIREMENT
When no notice is proven, as the factual ease here, it is not necessary to prove a meritorious defense. Lopez v. Lopez, 757 S.W.2d 721 (Tex.1988).
While the majority states: “we believe it elementary that appellant’s efforts to set aside the default summary judgment must comply with the requirements of Craddock the courts of appeal are divided on the issue. As the majority notes, Costello v. Johnson, 680 S.W.2d 529, 531 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.), holds Craddock applies to “default” summary judgments. See also Krchnak v. Fulton, 759 S.W.2d 524, 529 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1988, writ denied).
However, the Houston First Court of Appeals has held otherwise. In Enernational Corp. v. Exploitation Engineers, 705 S.W.2d 749 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.), which involved a motion for new trial after a summary judgment, the court held the requirements of Craddock have no application to an appeal from the granting of a summary judgment. They noted that a summary judgment is not granted because a non-movant fails to answer, but because the movant’s summary judgment proof is sufficient as a matter of law. 705 S.W.2d at 751. Later, Rabe v. Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co., 787 S.W.2d 575 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied), followed the rationale of Enemational Corp. I believe the Houston Court has the better of the argument and rationale. Craddock should not apply in the summary judgment context.
In summary:
a. appellant proved he did not receive notice of the summary judgment hearing,
b. this rebutted the presumption of Rule 21a,
c. no other court has resorted to a constructive notice scenario in a summary judgment proceeding,
d. because summary judgment is a harsh remedy, this court should neither invent nor utilize the constructive notice theory,
e. without notice, Craddock definitely does not apply,
f. with notice, Craddock should not apply.

. The reader is at an obvious disadvantage when members of an appellate court disagree as to what is in the record.