Court Opinion

ID: 9772107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:07:38.687563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:42.133964
License: Public Domain

*785CADENA, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree that the judgment below should be affirmed, but I would base that result solely on the ground that appellant’s cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. The negligence, if any, of appellee, occurred in 1972 and this suit was not filed until 1979. Under these circumstances, ap-pellee’s invocation of the statute of limitations barred any recovery by appellant. Citizens State Bank of Dickinson v. Shapiro, 575 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1978, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Beil v. Bell, 434 S.W.2d 699 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1968, writ ref’d n. r. e.). See, also, the opinion, not yet published, in Edward Bankers & Company v. Richie, No. B2219, July 23, 1980 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.]).
I cannot join in the holding by the majority that the summary judgment record in this case establishes as a matter of law that appellee was not negligent.
In 1972, when the Medrano divorce proceedings which gave rise to appellant’s charge of negligence took place, the state of the law concerning partition of interest in retirement benefits may be summarized as follows:
1. Four decisions, including one by our Supreme Court, had held that retirement benefits which, at the time of the dissolution of the marriage, were “vested” in the sense that the minimum number of years required for retirement had been served, constituted a community asset subject to partition in the divorce proceedings. Busby v. Busby, 457 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.1970); Webster v. Webster, 442 S.W.2d 786 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1969, no writ); Mora v. Mora, 429 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1968, writ dism’d); Kirkham v. Kirkham, 335 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1960, no writ).
2. Only one case had been decided in which, at the time of the divorce, the spouse who was serving in the armed forces had not served the minimum number of years required for retirement. In Miser v. Miser, 475 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1971, writ dism’d), at the time of the divorce, the husband, an enlisted man, had not served the 20 years required for retirement, but had re-enlisted for a period which would expire after he had completed 20 years of service. The facts in Miser were almost identical with the facts in the divorce case with which we are here concerned. Here, at the time of the divorce, Oscar Medrano had served in the armed forces continuously as an enlisted man for 17 years and ten months, but was continuing to serve as a result of re-enlisting for a period terminating on October 31, 1974, on which expiration date he would have completed more than 20 years’ service. In Miser the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals, pointing out that the husband, because of the re-enlistment, was obligated to remain in the service for a period in excess of 20 years, held that his retirement rights constituted a community asset subject to partition in the divorce proceedings.
The majority opinion states that in 1972 there were four cases, Busby, Webster, Mora and Kirkham, which, while holding that vested retirement rights were subject to partition on divorce, should be construed as “indicating” that a “non-vested” interest in a retirement plan was not subject to such partition. This interpretation of those four decisions is not acceptable. A holding that a vested interest is subject to partition is no indication that a non-vested interest is not. As far as Busby is concerned, the untenability of the argument that it indicated that a non-vested right could not be partitioned is reflected in the opinion in Cearley v. Cearley, 544 S.W.2d 661, 665 (Tex.1976), where the Supreme Court said that the objections to the treatment of “non-vested” (referred to in Cearley as “unaccrued”) pension rights as property “were anticipated and answered by this Court in” Busby.
Since Miser was the only decision, at the time of the Medrano divorce, dealing with facts similar to those involved in the Medra-no divorce proceeding, and since that case clearly held that, under those circumstances, the interest in the pension benefits was a property right subject to partition, the statement in the majority opinion that in 1972 “the great weight of authority held *786that a divorce court had no power to divide non-vested military benefits” (emphasis mine) must be rejected.
It can, perhaps, be reasonably contended that because the only decision directly in point was that of an intermediate appellate court, the question of apportionment of non-vested pension rights was “unsettled” in 1972. But I cannot accept the notion that an attorney who fails to assert a right on behalf of his client, is, as a matter of law, rendered nonnegligent merely because the existence of the right is “unsettled.” Even under the remarkably low standard of care which many courts have traditionally imposed on attorneys, such a conclusion is indefensible.
According to the majority opinion, an attorney is not guilty of malpractice for an error in judgment if he acts in good faith and his acts are well founded and in the best interest of his client. Even if this standard of care is permitted to pass unchallenged, the majority opinion can be defended only if it be assumed that appellee acted in good faith, that his acts were well founded, and that his acts were in the best interest of his client.
Appellee’s answer in this case was limited to a general denial and a plea of limitations. It contains no allegations that the law was unsettled, that he acted in good faith, or that his failure to assert his client’s pension rights was in the best interest of his client. The appellee’s motion for summary judgment alleges that he is entitled to summary judgment because (1) appellant’s claim is barred by limitations; (2) at the time of the divorce proceeding “the state of the law in Texas regarding disposition of retirement benefits was unsettled, and Texas courts have long held that an error of judgment, if indeed there was such an error in judgment in this case, on a controverted or unsettled question of law, will not make an attorney liable for damages that result therefrom”; and (3) at the time of the divorce appellant “had not served the requisite twenty years in the military service such as would entitle him to retirement benefits and, therefore, his rights in said benefits were not vested or subject to partition.”
The motion for summary judgment does not allege that appellee’s actions were well founded. It does not assert that he acted in good faith. It does not state that his actions were in the best interests of his client. Even if the motion had contained such allegations, it is unverified and is not supported by any affidavit stating, even in the form of conclusions unsupported by recitals of fact, that the attorney’s action was well founded, taken in good faith and in the best interest of the client. Under these circumstances, there is no summary judgment “evidence” which establishes as a matter of law the existence of the facts necessary to bring into operation the rule relied on by the majority in concluding that appellee, as a matter of law, was not negligent. Under the record before us, the conclusion absolving the appellee of negligence as a matter of law can stand only if it be assumed that the failure to assert a right is necessarily a well founded course of conduct, engaged in good faith and is in the best interest of the client simply because the existence of the right is “unsettled.” I do not understand the mental processes which lead to the conclusion that a failure to assert a client’s right because the existence of the right is unsettled is, as a matter of law, in the best interest of the client. The record before us reflects no facts supporting the conclusion that the failure to assert the client’s right in this case was in the best interest of the client, and the majority opinion does not attempt to explain how such failure was in the client’s best interest. Nor is there any explanation why, in this case, presumptions should be indulged to support the summary judgment. See 5 Tex.Jur.3d, Appellate Review § 639 (1980).
I do not mean to suggest that appellee was, in fact, guilty of negligence. I merely reject the conclusion that the record before us establishes the absence of material facts on the question of negligence.
The majority opinion also bases its af-firmance of the summary judgment on the theory that appellant has suffered no damage. Appellee’s motion for summary judg*787ment specifies the grounds on which it was based and the absence of damage was not one of the specified grounds. Under these circumstances, the absence of damage, a ground not specified in the motion, cannot be made the basis for affirmance of the judgment. Castillo v. American States Insurance Company of Texas, 550 S.W.2d 408, 409 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1977, no writ); Avinger v. Campbell, 499 S.W.2d 698, 702 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas), writ ref'd n. r. e. per curiam, 505 S.W.2d 788 (Tex.1974).