Standing – Reversed and Remanded

  • In the Interest of T.R.H. Jr.
    • 091700001CV, 2018 WL 2246545
    • 75th District Court of Liberty County
    • Justice Kreger, May 17, 2018
  • The trial court named mother and father as joint managing conservators of the minor, including a provision in the final order that provided for paternal grandmother’s right of first refusal for keeping the child during working hours. Grandmother was not a party to the suit. Mother later sought to modify the order, and grandmother filed a motion to intervene. Mother filed a motion to dismiss, and the trial court dismissed the grandmother’s suit on the grounds that she lacked standing to initiate or intervene in the lawsuit.
  • The Ninth Court held that the grandmother was a “party affected by an order,” and reversed the trial court.

DWOP – Pet. Denied

  • In re Nowell
    • 548 S.W.3d 104
    • 60th Court of Jefferson County
    • Justice Kreger for the Majority, April 5, 2018
    • Justic Horton for the Dissent
  • Relators answered the suit filed by Henson in February 2010. After the parties conducted initial discovery, the case remained dormant until the election of a new trial judge in January 2017. The new judge set the case on the trial docket for April 2018. Subsequent to the case being set on the trial docket, Relators filed a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution and alternatively, for a continuance.
  • In response to the trial setting and motion to dismiss, Henson’s counsel designated experts and stated that he was unaware that the case had appeared on a dismissal docket. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss but granted a continuance of the case. Relators then filed this mandamus action challenging the judge’s denial of the motion to dismiss.
  • The majority of the Ninth Court noted that a delay of unreasonable duration will raise a conclusive presumption of abandonment of the suit and that the Rules of Judicial Administration provide that civil jury cases are to be brought to final disposition within 18 months of the appearance date. The majority of the Ninth Court then concluded that because Henson had submitted to a deposition, obtained medical records, and responded to requests for discovery, sufficient facts were before the trial court to enable it to conclude that the delay was not attributable to conscious indifference but because both the trial court and plaintiff’s counsel had inadvertently lost track of the case.
  • In his dissenting opinion, Justice Hollis Horton challenged the majority’s opinion regarding the reasonableness of the explanation offered by Henson’s counsel. In particular, Justice Horton noted that the Record was completely devoid of any explanation for the delay by the “attorney in charge” of Henson’s case; that is, the only explanation was one provided by an associate attorney, and the associate gave no reasonable explanation for the significant delays.