Wooley v. Schaffer

• Decision Date: 14 August 2014
• Docket Number: No. 14–13–00385–CV.,14–13–00385–CV.
• Citation: 447 S.W.3d 71
• Parties: William Carl WOOLEY, Appellant v. Randy SCHAFFER, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

447 S.W.3d 71

William Carl WOOLEY, Appellant

v.Randy SCHAFFER, Appellee.

No. 14–13–00385–CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

Aug. 14, 2014.

Rehearing Overruled Oct. 9, 2014.

William Carl Wooley, pro se.

Randy Schaffer, pro se.

Panel consists of Chief Justice FROST and Justices JAMISON and WISE.

MAJORITY OPINION

MARTHA HILL JAMISON, Justice.

In four issues, pro se inmate William Carl Wooley complains that the trial court dismissed his civil lawsuit against his former attorney Randy Schaffer, whom Wooley retained to seek habeas relief on his behalf. Concluding that Wooley's causes of action have no basis in law or fact because Wooley has not been exonerated from his criminal convictions, we affirm.

Background¹

Wooley was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and related offenses. His convictions were affirmed on appeal, and he subsequently filed pro se habeas corpus applications in district court in Tarrant County, Texas. He alleged, as relevant here, ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to file a motion to suppress video evidence that had been stolen by Wooley's son and given to the police. Thereafter, Wooley's brother signed an agreement with Schaffer,² who agreed to conduct an investigation “to determine whether there is any basis to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge ... Wooley's convictions” in exchange for a fee of $10,000.

After conducting the investigation, Schaffer advised Wooley by letter that he could file applications for a writ of habeas corpus to assert ineffective assistance of trial counsel on two bases: (1) that trial counsel should have moved to suppress the videos if Wooley's son had not intended to give them to the police at the time he stole them, as they would therefore be inadmissible; and (2) that trial counsel should not have presented testimony from Wooley's psychologist because it was “extremely prejudicial” to Wooley. Schaffer informed Wooley that he would charge a fee of $25,000 plus expenses to argue both issues or a fee of $15,000 plus expenses to argue only the second issue.³ Wooley responded by letter that trying to prove his son did not intend to turn over the videos to authorities would be “a waste of time and money,”⁴ and Wooley authorized Schaffer only to raise the second issue.

Wooley's brother, as guarantor, signed a “Professional Services Contract” with the Law Office of Randy Schaffer, P.C., in which he agreed to pay $15,000, plus the $10,000 investigation fee already paid. The firm agreed to file habeas applications on Wooley's behalf. It is undisputed that Schaffer filed applications raising the issue regarding trial counsel's effectiveness in presenting the psychologist's testimony, a brief, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as a supplement to Wooley's pro se applications already pending raising the issue regarding suppression of the videos.⁵

Schaffer argued the case before a special master, who filed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the district court recommending denial of the habeas applications. The district court approved the special master's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief. Two months later, Wooley allegedly informed Schaffer for the first time that Wooley wanted Schaffer to raise the issue regarding suppression of the videos. Subsequently, Wooley allegedly demanded a return of $20,000 of Schaffer's fee. When Schaffer refused to return the sum, Wooley initiated the underlying lawsuit.

Wooley included various allegations in his original petition related to Schaffer's purported (1) failure to investigate the illegal search issue or include it in the habeas applications that Schaffer filed, (2) failure to provide accounts of how Wooley's funds were expended, (3) overcharging Wooley and refusing to refund fees paid by him, (4) using fees paid by Wooley for purposes other than seeking habeas relief for Wooley, and (5) knowingly presenting unmeritorious claims. Wooley alleged Schaffer's acts constituted “deceptive practices and unethical conduct,” “negligence or incompetence” and obstructed Wooley's “First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and statutory rights.” Schaffer simultaneously filed special exceptions to Wooley's petition and a motion to dismiss the lawsuit under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a. Wooley filed objections to the special exceptions and the motion to dismiss thirty days later but did not amend his petition. The trial court did not rule on the special exceptions but granted the motion to dismiss five days later.

Discussion

Wooley complains in four issues that the trial court erred in granting Schaffer's motion to dismiss under Rule 91a because (1) Wooley brought causes of action against Schaffer for legal malpractice, breach of contract, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act⁶ (DTPA) and Wooley's constitutional rights; (2) Wooley filed suit within the applicable two-year statute of limitations; and (3) files and records for this case are missing from the Harris County District Clerk's office.⁷

Rule 91a allows a party to move to dismiss a cause of action on the ground that it has no basis in law or in fact. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 91 a.1. As specified in the rule: “A cause of action has no basis in law if the allegations, taken as true, together with inferences reasonably drawn from them, do not entitle the claimant to the relief sought. A cause of action has no basis in fact if no reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded.” Id. A motion to dismiss must identify each cause of action to which it is addressed and must state specifically the reasons the cause of action has no basis in law, no basis in fact, or both. Tex.R. Civ. P. 91 a.2. The trial court may not consider evidence in ruling on the motion and must decide the motion based solely on the pleading of the cause of action, together with any exhibits permitted by Rule 59.⁸ Tex.R. Civ. P. 91a.6.

I. We review the trial court's ruling on a Rule 91a motion to dismiss de novo, construing the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiff, looking to the pleader's intent, and accepting as true the factual allegations in the pleadings.

We must decide as a matter of first impression in this court what standard of review to apply to a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 91a.⁹ We generally review a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss in other contexts for abuse of discretion; however, we review the trial court's ruling on a question of law de novo. See, e.g., Nexion Health at Beechnut, Inc. v. Paul, 335 S.W.3d 716, 718 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (applying de novo standard to review motion to dismiss in healthcare liability case when issue was whether service had been effected properly); Singleton v. Casteel, 267 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (applying de novo standard to review motion to dismiss to determine whether official immunity applied under Texas Tort Claims Act); Harris Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. Textac Partners I, 257 S.W.3d 303, 315 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (applying summary judgment standard to review motion to dismiss that addressed claims on merits). While we acknowledge that the determination of whether a cause of action has a basis in law is, on its face, a question of law, see GoDaddy, 429 S.W.3d at 754, the language of Rule 91a is less clear as to the determination of whether a cause of action has a basis in fact—in which case “no reasonable person could have believed the facts pleaded”—is a question of law. Tex.R. Civ. P. 91a.1.

Although we acknowledge that Rule 91a motions to dismiss are unique, we find them to be analogous to pleas to the jurisdiction, which require a court to determine whether the pleader has alleged facts demonstrating jurisdiction. See Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225–26 (Tex.2004). In that context, we construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiff, look to the pleader's intent, and accept as true the factual allegations in the pleadings to determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the trial court's jurisdiction over a claim. Id. at 226. Even though we are construing the jurisdictional facts alleged in the petition, whether a pleader has alleged facts that demonstrate jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. Id. This determination is consistent with the requirement in Rule 91 a to take the allegations, together with any reasonable inferences “as true.” See Tex.R. Civ. P. 91a.1.

Rule 91a also requires the court to determine whether a “reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded” to determine whether a pleading has a basis in fact. Tex.R. Civ. P. 91a.1. This language is similar to a legal sufficiency challenge, in which we ask whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable people to reach the verdict under review. See City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex.2005). Even though we construe the factual evidence presented at trial, the determination of legal sufficiency is a question of law we review de novo. See id. at 822, 827.

Federal courts also apply a de novo standard of review to a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).¹⁰ In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.2007). Rule 91a has unique language allowing dismissal of causes of action with no basis in law or fact. Tex.R. Civ. P. 91a. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) similarly allows dismissal if a plaintiff fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”; therefore, we find case law interpreting Rule 12(b)(6) instructive. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) ; see also GoDaddy, 429 S.W.3d at 754.

For a complaint to survive a Federal Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, it must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”¹¹ GoDaddy, 429...