Court Opinion

ID: 9676920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:38:22.715065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:52.325341
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
BUTTS, Justice.
I agree to denial of appellee’s motion for rehearing based on the narrow holding of the opinion. That states a fact issue was raised that the mother relied on the attorney’s information until June 1983 when she consulted other attorneys and the attorney concealed the true information from her. The pleadings in the summary judgment action indicate enough information for the trial judge to determine that Crean and her present husband learned of the legal effects of their admissions early enough to justify the bar by limitations. If that were the only possible basis for the trial court’s order that the statute of limitations barred the suit, I would agree the order should be affirmed. However, the mother’s affidavit stresses the concealment was that she had no grounds for initiating an adoption. She says that had she been advised by the lawyer that a suit for adoption would not lie, she would have abstained from the initial suit, the second suit, and all succeeding matters. If she was not aware of this, and it actually was concealed from her until June 1983, then the suit would not be barred.
This question of concealment, to me, was the only “issue of material fact” raised by the responsive pleadings. That concealment question should be narrowly confined as shown.