Court Opinion

ID: 9778603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:13:47.085061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:12.050421
License: Public Domain

CALVERT, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the judgments of the courts below and remand the cause for further proceedings. '
The true question before this Court is not whether as a matter of law Brammer abandoned his objections to the award of the special commissioners, but is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in • overruling and in not sustaining Denton Coun*202ty’s motion to dismiss the objections. Our latest expression on the subject of discontinuance or abandonment is found in Bevil v. Johnson, 157 Tex. 621, 307 S.W.2d 85. In that case we reaffirmed the power of a trial court to dismiss a legal proceeding because of failure to prosecute it with due diligence, and said:
“The matter rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. It is not an unbridled discretion, but a judicial discretion subject to review. Upon review, the question is whether there was a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court. That is a question of law.” (307 S.W.2d 87)
Before an appellate court can decide the law question of whether there has been a clear abuse of discretion by a trial court, the record before that court must have been such as to call for the exercise of discretion and it must have been exercised. This is made clear by our decision in Callahan v. Staples, 139 Tex. 8 161 S.W.2d 489, from which the majority quote. The rule there announced is that “whenever a delay of an unreasonable duration occurs, , such delay, if not sufficiently explained, will raise a conclusive presumption of abandonment * * *, and a discontinuance results.” That is but another way of saying that unreasonable delay in prosecuting a legal proceeding as to which one has the duty of action raises a rebuttable presumption of abandonment, and in the absence of evidence of facts and circumstances excusing the delay the presumption will become conclusive and a discontinuance will result. A conclusive presumption cannot be rebutted or explained away. The full import of the quotation from Callahan v. Staples cannot be obtained by separating it from the facts and the actual holding in the case.
The essential facts in Callahan v. Staples are these: On June 9, 1928, Callahan and Robertson recovered a judgment against Staples, who had been cited by publication. On June 6, 1930, Staples and Bowen (who held under Staples)-filed a motion'for new trial under the provisions of Article 2236, ■Vernon’s Annotated Texas Statutes. Other than the taking and filing of Staples’ deposition on August 25, 1931, no action was taken toward prosecution of the motion for new trial until October 24, 1938. A motion to dismiss the motion for new trial on the ground of abandonment was filed. Staples and Mrs. Bowen offered to prove that they had good reason for the long delay in prosecuting their motion for new trial, but the trial court refused to hear evidence and dismissed the motion. This court specifically held that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the mov-ants “to show, if they can, a sufficient excuse for the delay, which occurred prior to October 24, 1938, in the prosecution of the motion for new trial.” Of particular significance is the language of the court immediately following that which is quoted in the majority opinion. It is:
“However, since the discontinuance ' must be based on a factual situation involving lack of due diligence, same does not and cannot become effective until the basic facts are adjudicated by the court. Whenever the hearing for such adjudication is had, the plaintiff has the right to be heard to explain, if he can, his delay in prosecuting his suit.” (161 S.W.2d 491)
Considered together, the rules of the Callahan and Bevil cases add up to a reasonable, logical and salutary whole. One who files a judicial proceeding owes a duty to prosecute it with due diligence. When a motion to dismiss a proceeding on the ground of abandonment is filed, the trial court must first determine whether the proceeding has been oil file, without action, for an unreasonable length of time. If it has not, the motion should be overruled summarily. If it has, a rebuttable presumption of abandonment arises, and an opportunity should be afforded the party who filed the proceeding to prove, if he can, that he had good reason for his delay in prosecuting the ■ proceeding. If' he fails or refuses to *203offer proof, or if the proof offered ’fails to show good reason for the delay, the presumption is not rebutted and becomes conclusive, and the motion to dismiss should be granted. If proof is offered and does show good reason for the delay, the presumption is rebutted and the motion should be overruled. Whatever may be the action of the trial court, and at whatever stage it is taken, it is to be taken in the exercise of sound judicial discretion and is erroneous only if it is so arbitrary as to constitute an abuse of discretion.
If Callahan stands for anything it stands for the proposition that it is an abuse of discretion to grant a motion for dismissal based upon abandonment without affording the party who filed the proceeding an opportunity to offer evidence showing good reason for the delay. And yet, this court’s action in this case in sustaining Denton County’s motion to dismiss contains the same inherent vice. Brammer has had no opportunity to offer evidence explaining his delay, and our judgment denies him that opportunity.
So far as the record before us discloses, the trial judge summarily overruled the County’s motion to dismiss. There is no indication that he heard evidence of any kind from any source, or that he offered either party an opportunity to present evidence. He may have concluded that a delay of seven years in having citation issued and served on the County and a delay of five years in having the case set for trial after withdrawal of the deposited award was not unreasonable delay. If so, I am satisfied that his action in overruling the motion was an abuse of discretion. But it does not follow that the judge abused his discretion in failing summarily to grant the motion.
When the trial judge acted he had before him a record showing unreasonable delay by Brammer in having citation issued and served and in having the case set for trial. As matters then stood there was a rebuttable presumption óf abandonment by Brammer of his objections. But a summary granting of the motion without affording Brammer an opportunity to offer evidence rebutting the presumption would, according to Callahan, have been an abuse of discretion. For, as we said there, a discontinuance “does not and cannot become effective until the basic facts are adjudicated by the court.”
The only possible point of distinction between what we held to be wrong in Callahan and what we hold to be right here is that in Callahan Staples requested the trial judge to hear evidence on the reason for his delay, while in this case Brammer made no such request. But that distinction fails to recognize the simple facts of life in a judicial proceeding. In Callahan there was reason for the request because the judge was granting the motion to dismiss and Staples was trying to offer evidence to convince the judge that he was not justified in taking that action. In this case there was no reason for Brammer to request an opportunity to offer evidence to convince the judge that he should overrule the motion to dismiss because the judge was taking that action without evidence. To turn Bram-mer’s right to maintain his suit on his failure to request the trial judge for an opportunity to offer evidence is, under the circumstances, utterly unrealistic and unreasonable.
No opportunity has been offered Bram-mer to present evidence to the trial judge to explain his undue delay in the respects mentioned, and the trial judge, therefore, has had no opportunity to exercise his discretion in adjudicating the basic facts of the discontinuance. I would reverse the judgments of the courts below and would remand the cause to the trial court with directions to hear such evidence as Bram-mer may care to offer on the motion to dismiss. The trial judge should then act on the motion to dismiss. If good reason for his delay is not shown by Brammer, his objections should be dismissed and judgment *204should be entered on the award just as though no objections had been filed. If good reason is shown, the motion to dismiss should be overruled and the court should proceed to retrial of the case on its merits. In either event the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss would be reviewable on appeal as for abuse of discretion.
WALKER, GREENHILL and STEAK-LEY, JJ., join in this dissent.