Brownlee v. Brownlee
| Decision Date | 29 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C-2313,C-2313 |
| Parties | Michael Graves BROWNLEE, Petitioner, v. Barbara Ann BROWNLEE, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Steinberg & Meer, Carl A. Generes, John Alan Goren, Dallas, for petitioner.
Warren Zimmerman, Dallas, for respondent.
This is a summary judgment case. The trial court granted summary judgment for Barbara Ann Brownlee against her former spouse, Michael Graves Brownlee, in Barbara's suit based on breach of a written settlement agreement contained in an agreed judgment of divorce. The court of appeals affirmed. 1 Michael Brownlee contends there was a genuine issue of material fact raised in his response to the motion for summary judgment and in his affidavit in opposition to the motion. We disagree with Mr. Brownlee and affirm the judgments of the trial court and the court of appeals.
In February of 1974, Barbara and Michael Brownlee were divorced and entered into a support and settlement agreement which was approved and rendered as an agreed judgment. The agreement provided for contractual alimony of $1200 per month and for child support of $200 per month. Michael failed to make any payments from May 1979 to July 1980, and Barbara filed suit to collect these missed payments in the amount of $18,000 plus interest and attorney's fees.
At the time she filed suit, Barbara also filed a motion for summary judgment. In support of that motion, Barbara filed a copy of the agreement along with her affidavit which pointed out the nonpayment. In his response to the motion and in his affidavit opposing it, Michael did not contest the validity of the agreement or the fact of nonpayment; rather, he stated that the agreed judgment had been "amended and modified since the date of their execution and entry, respectively, in many respects, including but not limited to, modification of my obligation to make either support and/or periodic payments as set forth therein." Michael contends that this allegation raises a genuine issue of material fact. We disagree.
Michael Brownlee's allegation of modification is clearly an affirmative defense. He admits the existence of the alimony/child support agreement and his failure to make payments thereunder, but he attempts to avoid liability by alleging modification of the agreement. If the party opposing a summary judgment relies on an affirmative defense, he must come forward with summary judgment evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact on each element of the defense to avoid summary judgment. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houle v. Jose Luis Casillas, Casco Invs. Inc.
...only of conclusions are insufficient to raise an issue of fact in response to a motion for summary judgment. Brownlee v. Brownlee , 665 S.W.2d 111, 112 (Tex. 1984). A conclusory statement is one that does not provide the underlying facts to support the conclusion. Residential Dynamics, LLC ......
-
Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture v. Joe
...his constituents. Conclusory speculation and conjecture cannot defeat a party's right to summary judgment. See, e.g., Brownlee v. Brownlee, 665 S.W.2d 111, 112 (Tex. 1984) (conclusions in an affidavit are insufficient to raise an issue of fact). Where summary judgment evidence raises no mor......
-
S. Cty. Mutual Ins. Co. v Ochoa
...judgment evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact on each element of the defense to avoid summary judgment. Brownlee v. Brownlee, 665 S.W.2d 111, 112 (Tex. 1984); City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671, 678-9 (Tex. 1979); Neuhaus v. Richards, 846 S.W.2d 70, 74 (......
-
Larsen v. Santa Fe Independent School Dist.
...judgment in a retaliatory discharge action. See Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d at 452; Carrozza, 876 S.W.2d at 314; see also Brownlee v. Brownlee, 665 S.W.2d 111, 112 (Tex.1984) ("Affidavits consisting only of conclusions are insufficient to raise an issue of fact"); Hidalgo v. Sur. Sav. & Loan Ass'n,......