Rollins v. Pressler

• Decision Date: 25 February 2021
• Docket Number: NO. 01-19-00460-CV,01-19-00460-CV
• Citation: 623 S.W.3d 918
• Parties: Gareld Duane ROLLINS, Jr., Appellant v. H. Paul PRESSLER III, Nancy Pressler, Paige Patterson, Jared Woodfill, Woodfill Law Firm f/k/a Woodfill & Pressler, L.L.P., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and First Baptist Church of Houston, Appellees
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

623 S.W.3d 918

Gareld Duane ROLLINS, Jr., Appellant

v.H. Paul PRESSLER III, Nancy Pressler, Paige Patterson, Jared Woodfill, Woodfill Law Firm f/k/a Woodfill & Pressler, L.L.P., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and First Baptist Church of Houston, Appellees

NO. 01-19-00460-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Opinion issued February 25, 2021

Michael S. Goldberg, Kevin T. Jacobs, Travis L. Gray, Alexander Ross Hernandez, BAKER BOTTS L.L.P., 910 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, for Appellant.

Edward C. Tredennick, John F. Luman III, Jillian L. Schumacher, DANIELS & TREDENNICK, LLP, 6363 Woodway Drive, Ste. 700, Houston, Texas 77057, for Appellees.

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Hightower.

Gordon Goodman, Justice The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the basis that most of Gareld Duane Rollins, Jr.'s claims are barred by limitations. The trial court later granted three other summary judgments, which disposed of the remainder of Rollins's claims. Rollins now challenges the part of the resulting final judgment based on limitations. We reverse this part of the judgment, affirm the remainder, and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.

BACKGROUND

In 2017, Rollins sued H. Paul Pressler III and several other defendants. Rollins alleges that Pressler raped him in 1980, when Rollins was 14 years old, and then repeatedly raped him afterward over the course of the next 24 years or so. Rollins further alleges that the other defendants helped Pressler cover up his crimes.

According to Rollins's suit, Pressler began molesting him after they met at a Bible study group led by Pressler. Pressler told Rollins that the sexual abuse was divinely sanctioned but needed to be kept secret because only God would understand it. Pressler allegedly continued to rape Rollins throughout the latter's high-school years. The sexual contact between Rollins and Pressler continued off and on afterward until sometime in 2003 or 2004, when Rollins was in his thirties.

Rollins and Pressler had an altercation in a Dallas hotel room in 2003. As a result of the altercation, Rollins sued Pressler for simple assault. They settled the lawsuit in 2004. As part of the settlement agreement, Pressler agreed to pay Rollins $1,500 per month for 25 years, and Rollins agreed to keep the suit and underlying altercation confidential. Rollins and Pressler have not seen each other since.

Rollins alleges that while he was in prison in 2015, he received psychiatric counseling that made him realize for the first time that his sexual relationship with Pressler had been non-consensual and that Pressler had repeatedly raped him for years. After he was released from prison, Rollins filed this suit in 2017.

Pressler and the other defendants moved for summary judgment based on limitations. They argued that Pressler last saw Rollins in 2004 and that Rollins therefore had to file suit no later than 2009, given the five-year statute of limitations for sexual assault. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.0045(b)(1).

Rollins opposed summary judgment on two grounds. First, he argued that he was of unsound mind when his cause of action for sexual assault accrued in 2004 and that limitations thus was tolled until his 2015 breakthrough in psychiatric counseling, when he first realized the true nature of Pressler's abuse. See id. § 16.001(a)(2), (b). In support, he relied on the opinion of Dr. Harvey A. Rosenstock.

Rosenstock submitted two affidavits. He began treating Rollins in 2016. Rollins has a history of drug and alcohol abuse and incarceration. This behavioral pattern began when he was about 13 years old and continued into adulthood.

Rosenstock diagnosed Rollins as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from Rollins's childhood sexual trauma. He opined that this diagnosis led him to "conclude that as of November 2015, Mr. Rollins was of unsound mind which rendered him incapable of making diligent inquiry as to the reasons for his repeated intoxication followed by appropriate action." Rosenstock also opined that "anal penetration of an innocent child is sufficiently traumatic to cause these overwhelmingly painful memories to be defensively repressed and dissociated until a safer time in the name of survival." Rosenstock concluded that Rollins's "repeated intoxication at a severity to result in incarceration is an indicator of a person chronically suffering from an unsound mind" and that Rollins's mental condition "has undoubtedly adversely affected his decision making for years."

Second, Rollins argued that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment tolled limitations.¹ Rollins claimed that Pressler had induced him not to file suit sooner by persuading him that their sexual activities were divinely approved but had to be concealed from others because no one but God would understand their relationship. Rollins also claimed that Pressler had induced him not to file suit sooner by buying his silence with the monthly payments from the 2004 settlement.

The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Pressler and the other defendants based on their limitations defense, which disposed of all but a handful of Rollins's claims. The trial court later disposed of his remaining claims in three other summary-judgment orders. On appeal, Rollins challenges the trial court's determination that the majority of his claims are barred by limitations.

DISCUSSION

Rollins does not dispute that all his claims accrued at the latest in 2004, when he and Pressler last had contact. Nor does Rollins dispute that the five-year statute of limitations for sexual assault is the lengthiest applicable limitations period. Relying on the exception for unsound mind and the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, however, Rollins argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Pressler and the other defendants on the basis of limitations.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

Traditional Summary Judgment Standard

We review a summary judgment de novo. Erikson v. Renda , 590 S.W.3d 557, 563 (Tex. 2019). In a de novo review, we give no deference to the trial court's ruling. McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse , 539 S.W.3d 278, 282 (Tex. 2018).

A defendant moving for traditional summary judgment has the burden to show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c) ; Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds , 589 S.W.3d 127, 131 (Tex. 2019). The defendant thus must conclusively disprove at least one element of each of the plaintiff's claims or conclusively prove each element of an affirmative defense. Frost Nat'l Bank v. Fernandez , 315 S.W.3d 494, 508 (Tex. 2010). Proof is conclusive if reasonable people could not differ in their conclusions.

Helix Energy Sols. Grp. v. Gold , 522 S.W.3d 427, 431 (Tex. 2017).

If the defendant carries his burden, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. Lujan v. Navistar, Inc. , 555 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2018). In deciding whether a disputed issue of material fact precludes summary judgment in the defendant's favor, we credit evidence favorable to the plaintiff if a reasonable factfinder could and disregard contrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder could not. Erikson , 590 S.W.3d at 563. We indulge every reasonable inference and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Lujan , 555 S.W.3d at 84.

Statute of Limitations

Limitations is an affirmative defense. TEX. R. CIV. P. 94. A defendant that moves for summary judgment based on this defense bears the burden to prove its elements, including when the plaintiff's claims accrued. Erikson , 590 S.W.3d at 563. When, as here, the plaintiff pleads a tolling doctrine as an exception to the defense of limitations, the defendant likewise must conclusively negate the exception. Id. A defendant can negate an exception to the defense of limitations in one of two ways. He can conclusively establish that the exception does not apply as a matter of law. See Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Pasko , 544 S.W.3d 830, 834 (Tex. 2018) (per curiam) (discussing discovery rule). Or, if the exception applies, the defendant can conclusively show that the evidence disproves the exception. Id.

Unsound Mind

A person of unsound mind is under a legal disability. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.001(a)(2). If a person is of unsound mind when a cause of action accrues, the time during which he is disabled is not included in the limitations period. Id. § 16.001(b). But if he becomes of unsound mind after the cause of action accrues, then his legal disability does not suspend the running of limitations. Id. § 16.001(d).

In general, unsound mind means insane or mentally incompetent. Freeman v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co. , 53 S.W.3d 710, 713 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). But tolling of limitations based on the plaintiff's unsound mind is not restricted to those who have been adjudged insane or mentally incompetent. Id.

To establish an entitlement to tolling of limitations based on unsound mind, a plaintiff has to either produce specific evidence that shows he did not have the mental capacity to pursue his suit or submit a fact-based expert opinion to this effect. Id. ; Gribble v. Layton , 389 S.W.3d 882, 894 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied). A plaintiff lacks the mental capacity to pursue his suit if he is unable to participate in, control, or understand the progression and disposition of the suit. See Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc. , 868 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tex. 1993). In assessing a plaintiff's mental capacity, courts should consider, for example, the degree to which he was capable of giving information and testifying. See id. at 756.

Analysis

A. Rollins has not waived his right to assert the applicability of the unsound-mind tolling exception to limitations...