Court Opinion

ID: 9647602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:42:06.275299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:55.186845
License: Public Domain

*867BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds there was insufficient evidence at the hearing on the motion for new trial to establish that the failure to answer was the result of anything other than a conscious decision. The trial judge, however, had before him the motion for new trial itself. The motion had been verified by appellant’s counsel. Therefore, the motion was properly before the court on the question of intentional disregard or conscious indifference. See Strackbein v. Prewitt, 671 S.W.2d 37 (Tex.1984). This verified motion contained facts which were not controverted and which, in this writer’s opinion, negated consciously indifferent conduct. Furthermore, although not addressed in the majority opinion, appellant established a meritorious defense and there was no showing that the granting of the new trial would occasion a delay or work an injury to the plaintiff. Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex.1934). Therefore, the trial court erred in refusing to grant a new trial. For the reasons stated, I would reverse and remand.