Thompson v. Weaver

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Panel consisted of WORTHEN
• Citation: Thompson v. Weaver, 429 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. App. 2014)
• Decision Date: 30 April 2014
• Docket Number: No. 12–13–00151–CV.,12–13–00151–CV.
• Parties: Angela Jeanette THOMPSON, Appellant v. Sheryl Ann WEAVER, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Alan Ray Adams, Deceased, Appellee.

429 S.W.3d 897

Angela Jeanette THOMPSON, Appellant

v.Sheryl Ann WEAVER, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Alan Ray Adams, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 12–13–00151–CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tyler.

April 30, 2014.

Jonathan Wharton, for Appellant.

Carl David Adams, Dallas, for Appellee.

Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and HOYLE, J.

OPINION

JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice.

Angela Jeanette Thompson appeals the trial court's summary judgment rendered in favor of Appellee Sheryl Ann Weaver, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Alan Ray Adams, Deceased. In two issues, Thompson argues that the trial court erred (1) in granting summary judgment in Weaver's favor on Thompson's affirmative defense of res judicata and (2) in denying Thompson's motion for sanctions. We reverse and render in part and affirm in part.

Background

On November 29, 2010, Thompson's vehicle collided head-on with a vehicle driven by Adams. Adams did not survive the crash.

Case 1

Weaver, Adams's sister and independent administrator of his estate, filed suit against Thompson in Cherokee County, Texas. The suit consisted of wrongful death claims made on behalf of Adams's mother, father, and child and a survival claim made by Weaver on behalf of Adams's estate. In addition to damages for, among other things, wrongful death and Adams's pain and suffering and mental anguish (nonproperty damages), Weaver sought to recover damages for destruction of Adams's vehicle and deer rifles (property damages).

In early 2011, the parties negotiated a settlement and their attorneys signed a Rule 11 agreement that stated, in pertinent part, as follows: “This will confirm that you have agreed to accept the offer of policy limits from Republic Insurance Group on behalf of Angela Jeanette Thompson in return for a full release and dismissal of all claims against Ms. Thompson.” Subsequently, Weaver nonsuited the claims for nonproperty damages and executed a formal release and settlement agreement. However, this release and settlement agreement did not release Weaver's claims for nonproperty damages. Thereafter, Weaver moved to dismiss all pending claims with prejudice. On March 10, 2011, the trial court signed an order stating that “all pending claims of Plaintiff in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” No appeal was taken in this cause.¹

Case 2

On July 15, 2011, Weaver, in her capacity as independent administrator of Adams's estate, filed the instant suit in Smith County against Thompson for damages from the same accident as was the subject of Case 1. Thompson filed a motion for summary judgment on her affirmative defense of res judicata. Weaver filed an amended motion for summary judgment arguing that the releases resulting from Case 1 did not cover her personal injury damages and a no evidence motion for summary judgment on Thompson's affirmative defense of res judicata. Thompson filed a response to Weaver's motions. The trial court granted Weaver's motions and denied Thompson's motion. Thompson also filed a motion for sanctions, which was denied. After further proceedings, the trial court entered a final judgment in Weaver's favor. This appeal followed.

Res Judicata

In her first issue, Thompson argues that the trial court erred in granting Weaver's amended no evidence motion for summary judgment and denying Thompson's traditional motion for summary judgment on her affirmative defense of res judicata.

Standard of Review

The movant for traditional summary judgment has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex.1985). Once the movant has established a right to summary judgment, the burden of proof shifts to the nonmovant to respond to the motion and present to the trial court any issues that would preclude summary judgment. See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678–79 (Tex.1979).

We review a trial court's grant of a summary judgment de novo. Frost Nat'l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494, 508 (Tex.2010). We examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts against the motion. Sudan v. Sudan, 199 S.W.3d 291, 292 (Tex.2006); KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex.1999). All theories in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must be presented in writing to the trial court. SeeTex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c).

Furthermore, after adequate time for discovery, a party without presenting summary judgment evidence may also move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial. Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(i). The motion must state the elements as to which there is no evidence. Id. Once a no evidence motion has been filed in accordance with Rule 166a(i), the burden shifts to the nonmovant to bring forth evidence that raises a fact issue on the challenged evidence. See Macias v. Fiesta Mart, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 316, 316–17 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). A no evidence motion is properly granted if the nonmovant fails to bring forth more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to an essential element of the nonmovant's claim on which the nonmovant would have the burden of proof at trial. See Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex.1997). If the evidence supporting a finding rises to a level that would enable reasonable, fair minded persons to differ in their conclusions, then more than a scintilla of evidence exists. See Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 711. Less than a scintilla of evidence exists when the evidence is so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion of a fact, and the legal effect is that there is no evidence. Palestine Herald–Press Co. v. Zimmer, 257 S.W.3d 504, 509 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2008, pet. denied).

When, as here, parties file cross motions for summary judgment, each party in support of its own motion necessarily takes the position that there is no genuine issue of fact in the case and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Lambrecht & Assocs., Inc. v. State Farm Lloyds, 119 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2003, no pet.). If one motion is granted and the other denied, we must review the summary judgment evidence presented by both sides and determine all questions presented. Id. In so doing, we first review the order granting summary judgment and if we determine the order was erroneous, we review the trial court's action in overruling the denied motion. Id. We may then either affirm the judgment or reverse and render the judgment the trial court should have rendered, including one that denies both motions. Id.

Governing Law

The claim preclusion doctrine of res judicata prevents the relitigation of a claim or cause of action that has been finally adjudicated, as well as related matters that, with the use of diligence, should have been litigated in the prior suit. See Compania Financiara Libano v. Simmons, 53 S.W.3d 365, 367 (Tex.2001); Musgrave v. Owen, 67 S.W.3d 513, 519 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.). Res judicata requires proof of the following elements: (1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) identity of parties or those in privity with them; and (3) a second action based on the same claims that were raised or could have been raised in the first action. See Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex.1996).

Texas follows the transactional approach to res judicata in determining what claims should have been brought, if they could have been, in a prior action. See Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627, 630–31 (Tex.1992). As our sister court of appeals has explained,

[a] final judgment extinguishes the right to bring other suits on the transaction or series of transactions involved in that litigation .... In determining whether the transaction is the same, we consider and weigh whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation; whether they form a convenient trial unit; and whether their treatment as a trial unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business usage.

Lone Star Partners v. NationsBank Corp., 893 S.W.2d 593, 597 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, writ denied). The transactional approach requires courts, in order to determine res judicata, to examine the factual basis, not the legal theories, presented in the cases. Owen, 67 S.W.3d at 519. The main concern is whether the cases share the same nucleus of operative facts. Id.

Claim Preclusion and the Transactional Approach

In the instant case, each party presented summary judgment evidence relevant to the issue of res judicata. That summary judgment evidence, consisting of documents from Case 1, included (1) Weaver's pleadings from Case 1, (2) Weaver's notice of nonsuit, (3) Weaver's motion to dismiss with prejudice, and (4) the trial court's order dismissing “all pending claims” with prejudice.

We first note that the trial court's order of dismissal with prejudice of all pending claims in Case 1 was a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. See Mossler v. Shields, 818 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Tex.1991) (“[I]t is well established that a dismissal with prejudice functions as a final determination on the merits.”); Christensen v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 304 S.W.3d 548, 553 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009, pet. denied); Zimmerman v. Texaco, Inc., 409 S.W.2d 607, 614 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1966, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Furthermore, Thompson and Weaver, as representative of Adams's estate, were both parties in Case 1. Thus, we must consider whether the case at hand is based on the same...