Court Opinion

ID: 9668909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:31:18.139762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:49.945556
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellees, Matthews and the firm, have filed a motion for rehearing, which we overrule with brief comment.
For clarity, we emphasize that this case does not present for determination the issue of whether Matthews and the firm had a right to renegotiate the fee agreement with the Jampole family, or whether they properly did so. Matthews and the firm did not assert as grounds for summary judgment that they are not liable as a matter of law. Neither did they assert as grounds for summary judgment that there is no fiduciary duty under Archer v. Griffin, 390 S.W.2d 735 (Tex.1965), which prohibits an attorney from renegotiating a fee agreement during the existence of the attorney-client relationship. Rather, the only asserted grounds for summary judgment were procedural grounds, that the running of the applicable statute of limitations barred appellants’ suit, and that the failure to replead by the Jampole family in accordance with the trial court’s order entitled Matthews and the firm to summary judgment. We intend no comment on the merits of the Jampole family’s allegations against Matthews and the firm, because such issues are not before us on this appeal of the summary judgment.
Secondly, we note that Rose v. Baker & Botts, 816 S.W.2d 805 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied), although similar, is distinguishable from the present case. In Rose, it was irrelevant to the opinion that, although the plaintiff had pled facts raising the discovery rule defense, there was a lack of evidence. We stated:
There is no summary judgment evidence on later discovered facts that supports [plaintiff’s] cause of action, and therefore, no genuine issue of fact about when [plaintiff] (or her father) discovered or should have discovered the nature of the injury.
Rose, 816 S.W.2d at 811.1
In contrast, the summary judgment evidence in the present case includes deposition testimony from Stanley Jampole, one of the plaintiffs, to the effect that it was not until June 1989, when he spoke to another attorney, that he discovered the acts of Matthews and the firm were inappropriate to the extent that Jampole had grounds to sue them. Again, whether the acts of Matthews and the firm were actually inappropriate is not an issue before us on this summary judgment appeal.
We overrule the motion for rehearing.
BASS, J., also participating.

. It appears from the opinion in Rose that the defendant presented sufficient summary judgment evidence to entitle it to judgment, thereby shifting the burden to the plaintiff to raise a fact issue by submitting her own summary judgment evidence. The plaintiff failed to meet her burden.