Peek v. Equipment Service Co. of San Antonio
| Decision Date | 08 November 1989 |
| Docket Number | Nos. C-8182,C-8426,s. C-8182 |
| Citation | 779 S.W.2d 802 |
| Parties | Lucie Allen PEEK, et al., Petitioner, v. EQUIPMENT SERVICE COMPANY OF SAN ANTONIO, et al., Respondents. Lucie Allen PEEK, Individually, and as Wife of Clyde Peek, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Clyde Peek, et al., Petitioner, v. Burton O. NEESWIG, M.D., Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
These cases present the question of whether a plaintiff seeking damages under the wrongful death and survival statutes invokes the jurisdiction of a district court by filing a petition which fails to allege either a specific amount of damages or that the damages sustained exceed the court's minimum jurisdictional limits. The district court held that its jurisdiction was not invoked by such a pleading. Because plaintiffs did not file a pleading properly alleging damages until after the applicable statute of limitations had run, the district court dismissed the suit. The court of appeals, in two unpublished opinions, affirmed. 1 We reverse the judgments of the court of appeals and remand this consolidated cause to the trial court because the original pleading, although defective, was sufficient to invoke the court's jurisdiction and prevent the running of limitations.
This matter arose out of the murder of Clyde Peek on December 18, 1984. The plaintiffs were Clyde's widow, Lucie Allen Peek, acting in her individual capacity and as representative of Clyde's estate, and Clyde's four surviving children. They brought suit on November 18, 1986, under the wrongful death and survival statutes. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. §§ 71.001-.003, § 71.021 (Vernon 1986). The Peeks sued six defendants: Marvin Wiley DeBerry, Jr., who shot and killed Peek; Equipment Service Company, DeBerry's employer; Victor J. Weiss, M.D. and Burton O. Neeswig, M.D., two doctors who had treated DeBerry for mental illness; Suzanne Cude, DeBerry's estranged wife; and Oshman's Sporting Goods, Inc., the owner of the store in which DeBerry purchased the murder weapon. The Peeks plead for lost care, nurture, guidance, education, wages in the past and future, pain and suffering, mental anguish, grief, loss of companionship, and loss of enjoyment of life (hedonic damages), together with interest and costs. What they did not plead, however, was the amount of damages sought, either by properly alleging that damages exceeded the minimum jurisdictional limits of the court, see Tex.R.Civ.P. 47(b), or by alleging a sum certain.
The Peeks amended their petition on December 16, 1986, but made no changes in their defective allegations of damages. In a second amended pleading, filed January 14, 1987, the Peeks sought $3,750,000 actual damages and $5,000,000 exemplary damages against the defendants, jointly and severally. This pleading, however, came more than two years after Clyde's death. All defendants except Oshman's Sporting Goods, Inc. filed motions to dismiss, alleging that the Peeks had failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the district court prior to the running of the two-year statute of limitations. 2 Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 16.003(b) (Vernon 1986). The trial court granted these motions at various times, and severance orders were signed so that these judgments became final. 3
The Peeks timely appealed to the court of appeals, which affirmed the judgments of the trial court in two opinions. From both judgments of the court of appeals, the Peeks applied to this court for writ of error. After granting both writs, we consolidated the two causes for oral argument and decision.
The parties here have assumed the minimum monetary jurisdictional limit of the district court to be $500.00. Although recent constitutional and legislative changes call this assumption into question, 4 we will also assume, for purposes of our decision, that the jurisdiction of the district court does not extend to controversies involving sums of less than $500.00.
In this case, all parties agree that the trial court's jurisdiction was invoked not later than the filing of the Peeks' second amended petition. The respondents, however, argue that the Peeks did not invoke jurisdiction by the first two pleadings, and hence did not obtain jurisdiction until after limitations had run. The Peeks, on the other hand, assert that their original petition did invoke the trial court's jurisdiction. Although the petition did not expressly allege that the amount sought was within the court's jurisdiction, neither did anything in the petition suggest that the court lacked jurisdiction. In fact, the Peeks argue that the nature of the loss sustained and the claims asserted made it absolutely apparent that plaintiffs sought damages far in excess of five hundred dollars.
The court of appeals held, however, that the Peeks' claims were time barred because the second amended petition, which alleged sufficient jurisdictional facts, was not filed prior to the expiration of limitations. In so holding, the court of appeals rejected the Peeks' theory that their second amended petition should relate back to the date of original filing. Instead, the court concluded that a petition which does not affirmatively state that the amount in controversy is above the minimum monetary jurisdiction of the district court is, in effect, no pleading.
In reaching this conclusion, the court relied heavily on our decision in Richardson v. First National Life Insurance Co., 419 S.W.2d 836 (Tex.1967). In that case, Richardson sued for breach of contract, alleging in his petition that he believed that "at least the amount of $314.37" was due to him, and also seeking an accounting and general relief. Id. at 837. The defendant attacked Richardson's pleading with special exceptions and, after Richardson failed to amend, the trial court dismissed his claim. The court of appeals and this court both affirmed. We held that because Richardson had specifically pleaded an amount under the minimum jurisdiction of the district court, he could not rely on his more general allegations to sustain jurisdiction. Id. at 839. Richardson, in effect, pleaded himself out of court.
In the instant case, however, the Peeks' original and first amended petitions did not affirmatively demonstrate an absence of jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, a liberal construction of the pleadings is appropriate. As we wrote in Pecos & Northern Texas Railway Co. v. Rayzor, 106 Tex. 544, 548, 172 S.W. 1103, 1105 (1915): "In any doubtful case all intendments of the plaintiff's pleading will be in favor of the jurisdiction." Unless it is clear from the pleadings that the court lacks jurisdiction of the amount in controversy, it should retain the case. Dwyer v. Bassett & Bassett, 63 Tex. 274, 276 (1885). As one court recently said: "[W]e must presume in favor of the jurisdiction unless lack of jurisdiction affirmatively appears on the face of the petition." Smith v. Texas Improvement Co., 570 S.W.2d 90, 92 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1978, no writ).
The failure of a plaintiff to state a jurisdictional amount in controversy in its petition, without more, thus will not deprive the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson
...sometimes called loss of enjoyment of life, encompasses the loss of the injured party's former lifestyle."49 A dissenting opinion in the San Antonio court of appeals contended that loss of enjoyment of life should be categorized as part of mental anguish damages.50 Thus, loss of enjoyment o......
-
Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd.
...show there is no jurisdiction, the court will presume the existence of jurisdiction in the trial court. Peek v. Equipment Serv. Co., 779 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex.1989). 2 This is not the only sense in which subject matter jurisdiction is "presumed" as to collateral matters. If a defendant conte......
-
Nueces County v. Ferguson
...in the plaintiffs favor and look to the pleader's intent. County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex.2002); Peek v. Equip. Serv. Co.. 779 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex.1989). A plaintiff bears the tau;len to allege facts affirmatively demonstrating the trial court's jurisdiction to near a c......
-
Jenkins v. Entergy Corp.
...In doing so, the trial court must construe the plaintiff's pleadings liberally in favor of jurisdiction, Peek v. Equip. Serv. Co., 779 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex.1989), and must take all factual allegations pled as true, unless the defendant pleads and proves that the allegations were fraudulentl......
-
Chapter 8-4 Accounting
...accounting); Richardson v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co., 419 S.W.2d 836, 838 (Tex. 1967).[131] See Peek v. Equip. Serv. Co. of San Antonio, 779 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex. 1989).[132] See Peek v. Equip. Serv. Co. of San Antonio, 779 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex. 1989).[133] Estate of Farmer, 09-18-00314-CV, ......
-
Chapter 21-2 Pleading and Determining Amount in Controversy
...rule prohibits the party from conducting discovery until the pleading is amended to comply.44--------Notes:[29] Peek v. Equip. Serv. Co., 779 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex. 1989).[30] Continental Coffee Prod. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444, 449 (Tex. 1996).[31] Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 24.009.[32] Smi......
-
Chapter 21-1 The Subject Matter Jurisdiction of Texas Trial Courts
...of $500, exclusive of interest. Chapa v. Spivey, 999 S.W.2d 833, 835-6 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1999, no pet.).[19] Peek v. Equip. Serv. Co., 779 S.W.2d 802, 804 n.4 (Tex. 1989).[20] Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 24.007 (amended 2012 to add "more than $500").[21] Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 24.008 ("The distri......