Court Opinion

ID: 9776088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:18:28.960387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:32.864557
License: Public Domain

PAUL C. MURPHY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Because I believe the State has not met the first element of the Craddock test, I respectfully dissent.
The first element of the Craddock test requires a showing that the appellant’s failure to answer was not intentional, or the result of conscious indifference, but was due to a mistake or accident. Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939). Although a slight excuse is sufficient, the Craddock requirements are not satisfied if the evidence shows the appellant ignored notice of the trial date or avoided notice and failed to make inquiries. See Sharpe v. Kilcoyne, 962 S.W.2d 697, 701 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no writ)(upheld post-answer default judgment where appellant knew she was being sued, knew her attorney would probably have to withdraw, failed to leave a forwarding address with the court, and made no inquiry to her attorney or the court); O’Connell v. O’Connell, 843 S.W.2d 212, 217-18 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1992, no writ)(upheld post-answer default judgment where appellant had filed four prior motions for continuance, was aware of trial setting, wrote judge a letter explaining she could not appear based on desparate financial situation, was temporarily out of state, and needed time to hire a new attorney).
At the hearing on the amended motion for new trial, assistant attorney general Mark Heidenheimer admitted he received notice of the “try or dismiss” docket hearing, but did not appear. The notice stated the date, time, and place of the hearing. Heidenheimer offered a number of excuses, none of which adequately explains his failure to appear. Heidenheimer claimed the former lead attorney on the case, Oliver Price, had never opened a separate file for the cross-action. Heidenheimer testified he mistakenly closed the file and sent it to storage. Heidenheimer also testified he thought the case would be dismissed because he thought appellees had received all the relief they wanted in the condemnation ease. The record shows, however, that Heidenheimer had been involved in the underlying condemnation case and had attended the hearing on the motion for sanctions when the trial judge struck the State’s pleadings and severed the cross-action. Therefore, Heidenheimer was aware of the pendency of the severed action.
In the motion for new trial and while on the stand, Heidenheimer stated that he received the notice of trial or dismissal docket sometime during the summer of 1996. When the trial court admonished Heidenheimer regarding the date of receipt, Heidenheimer conceded he did not know the exact date of receipt.1
*917Heidenheimer also testified that he mistakenly thought the opposing attorney, Richard McElya, had terminal cancer. Heidenheimer claimed he was unable to reach McElya by telephone. Heidenheimer testified he called the correct number but got an answering machine that did not identify the location as McElya’s office. Heidenheimer did not try to call again, claiming he had a mistaken belief McElya was no longer practicing law and had disconnected his phone. This testimony was controverted by Richard McElya, who testified that he has two full-time employees who answer the phone and, if they do not answer, a machine answers the phone 24 hours a day. To McElya’s knowledge, Heid-enheimer never called.
Finally, Heidenheimer admitted he did not call the clerk’s office regarding the notice. Although Heidenheimer agreed the language of the notice was clear, he claimed that, in his experience, this type of notice merely meant the case would be dismissed for want of prosecution if the plaintiff did not appear. If the plaintiff did appear, the case would be set for trial at a later date. Appellees’ counsel, McElya, testified that, when he received the notice, he knew he “was fixing to go to trial.” McElya stated he understood this notice to require the parties to appear and try the case or it would be dismissed.
The majority’s reliance on Director, State Employees Workers’ Comp. Div. v. Evans, 889 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.1994) is misplaced. In Evans, the responsible attorney had never received the amended notice of the trial date. Id. at 267. The former attorney had received notice, but did not note the new trial date in the case file or on his calendar before he resigned. Id.
Unlike the facts in Evans, there is no question here regarding knowledge of the trial date. The State’s attorney admits he received timely notice and, for other reasons, did not appear. Accordingly, I find Evans inapplicable.
I find the facts in this ease analogous to cases in which the defendant received notice but claimed to misunderstand an answer was required. See Johnson v. Edmonds, 712 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1986, no writ)(defendant received and read papers served upon him, but did not file an answer because he interpreted the notice to mean he would be sued in the future); First Nat’l Bank v. Peterson, 709 S.W.2d 276 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ refd n.r.e.)(defendant froze accounts in response to writ of garnishment, but did not submit funds to the court or file a written answer);2 Butler v. Dal Tex Mach. & Tool Co., Inc., 627 S.W.2d 258 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1982, no writ)(defendant received and read citation, but claimed he did not understand it required him to file a written answer). Because the notices clearly stated a written answer was required and the deadline for filing the answer, the appellate courts upheld the denial of the defendants’ motions for new trial. Johnson, 712 S.W.2d at 653; Peterson, 709 S.W.2d at 281; Butler, 627 S.W.2d at 260. In each of these cases, the courts essentially found that the failure to file an answer was conscious indifference because the defendants neither sought advice nor made inquiries to clarify their understanding of the notices they received. Johnson, 712 S.W.2d at 652-53; Peterson, 709 S.W.2d at 280; Butler, 627 S.W.2d at 260.
The State admits it received timely notice that the case would be dismissed or tried on July 15, 1996. The State did not contend it *918made any inquiries with the court regarding the status of the case or the necessity for its appearance. “Conscious indifference” is the failure to take some action which would seem indicated to a person of reasonable sensibilities under the same circumstances. Prince v. Prince, 912 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no writ). The evidence shows Heidenheimer received notice the case would be tried or dismissed on July 15, 1996, and Heidenheimer failed to appear for trial. The trial court has discretion to determine whether the failure to appear was inadvertent or the result of intentional conduct or conscious indifference. See Grissom v. Watson, 704 S.W.2d 325, 326 (Tex.1986). Because the evidence supports the trial court’s finding of conscious indifference, I would uphold the trial court’s discretionary ruling.

. The trial judge further rebuked Heidenheimer after denying the motion for new trial. The judge stated:
I want to make something else absolutely clear. Mr. Heidenheimer, we’ve been through some of this before. I find, again, through your response in the First Amended Motion for New Trial, which is over your signature, just an absolute blatant attempt to mislead the Court. Your testimony here today confirms that. You stated under oath that you received the notice of the try or dismiss docket sometime in the summer of 1996. April 23 r(i is *917obviously not the summer of 1996. I find that offensive. And I want to convey that thought.

. In Moya v. Lozano, 921 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1996, no writ), the court asserted its belief that Peterson was overruled by Bank One, Texas, N.A. v. Moody, 830 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex.1992). A review of Moody indicates the supreme court did not overrule Peterson. Indeed, the supreme court cited Peterson as a case in which the defendant’s mistake of law was insufficient to meet the requirements of Crad-dock. Id. Although the facts in Moody were similar to those in Peterson (no answer filed in response to a writ of garnishment), the supreme court found the bank's actions in Moody were sufficient because the bank not only froze the accounts upon receipt of the writ of garnishment, but also contacted the court and submitted the funds from the accounts into the registry of the court. Id. at 82. The supreme court observed that in Peterson, the bank froze the accounts in response to the writ, but did not answer and did not deposit the funds from the account with the court. Id. at 84.