Court Opinion

ID: 9773558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:49:37.221997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:55.057759
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Wick contends that we erred in reversing several crucial findings of fact made by the trial court because no attack was made on these findings by an assignment of error on appeal.' In this respect, Wick argues that these findings were supported by substantial evidence. These “fact findings” go to both the question of conscious indifference, as well as the question of meritorious defense.
With respect to a meritorious defense, it is well settled that the trial court must, as a matter of law, determine from the motion for new trial and movant’s affidavit whether such a defense has been “set up.” Ivy v. Carrell, 407 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Tex.1966). Consequently, any finding of fact by the trial court as to whether a meritorious defense has been set up is unauthorized and is of no effect.
A court is, however, justified in determining disputed questions of fact with respect to the “conscious indifference” standard. However, we know of no authority for a trial court to resolve disputed fact issues without hearing evidence. Even though facts contained in the Healys’ affidavits were disputed by Wick’s affidavit as to whether the Healys showed a lack of conscious indifference to the suit, no evi-dentiary hearing on these disputed issues was requested nor had. Indeed, the court’s order specifically recites: “the court having considered the motions, the depositions and affidavits on file herein, briefs and arguments of counsel, finds the following facts.” Thus, it is obvious that the court did not hold an evidentiary hearing. We hold, therefore, under these circumstances, that a court cannot make findings of fact solely from the record on file without hearing evidence and findings so made are without effect. We also hold that in such a situation, the court is bound to accept as true the affidavits of the movant unless his opponent requests an evidentiary hearing. See Dallas Heating Co. v. Pardee, 561 S.W.2d 16 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1977); Cowling v. Colligan, 307 S.W.2d 841, 843 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1957), reformed 158 Tex. 458, 312 S.W.2d 943 (1958).
Motion overruled.