Court Opinion

ID: 9677001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:40:30.452395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:53.042687
License: Public Domain

EVANS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I disagree with the conclusions reached by the majority on points of error four and five.
The majority opinion holds that the ap-pellee’s exceptions to the Shedlock affidavit were waived because the record does not show that the appellee requested or that the trial court held a hearing on the appel-lee’s exceptions. In a summary judgment proceeding, objections to defects in the form of motions or supporting affidavits are made by written exceptions filed in and made a part of the summary judgment record. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166-A(e). By merely filing exceptions in the proceedings, the party asserting such objections effectively presents them to the court for its consideration.
In this case, the appellee’s exceptions were before the court at the time of the hearing on appellant’s motion for summary judgment, and we must assume that the court acted properly and ruled upon the objections to the Shedlock affidavit. Those objections squarely raised the issue as to whether the affiant, as appellant’s counsel in the case, should be permitted to represent appellant and also to testify on a material issue in the case. Until the question of the attorney’s qualification was determined *150by the court, it acted within its discretion in refusing to consider the affidavit testimony of appellant’s counsel. Even though confronted with the appellee’s exceptions, the appellant did not make any attempt to show that her attorney had withdrawn from her representation or was otherwise permitted to give her testimony in the case. See Bert Wheeler’s, Inc. v. Ruffino, 666 S.W.2d 510 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no writ); United Pacific Ins. Co. v. Zardenetta, 661 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1983, no writ). Under this particular state of the record, the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing to consider the Shedlock affidavit as raising a genuine issue of material fact precluding the appellee’s motion for summary judgment.
I would affirm the trial court’s judgment.