Supreme Court of Texas Blog

No. 14-0279
Click for Official Page

FARM BUREAU COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. CRISTIL ROGERS

The Court requested full merits briefing on August 22, 2014. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on January 30, 2015. File Closed

Opinion

January 30, 2015

Percuriam.246722

Per Curiam OpinionView Electronic Briefs | Oral Argument N/A | Video N/A PDF

 

Court of Appeals

Appellate District:6th Court of Appeals
Outcome Below:Dismiss WOJ
COA Docket No.:06-14-00002-CV
Opinion Author:Honorable Bailey Moseley

Trial Court

Trial Court:County Court at Law
County:Lamar
Trial Judge:Honorable William Howard Harris
Trial Docket:82106

Entries on SCOTX Orders Lists

Docket Entries

Date Event Outcome  
2015-07-27 Case Stored  
  This case was waiting for a possible rehearing motion between March 12, 2015 and July 27, 2015.  
2015-03-12 Mandate issued  
2015-01-30 Opinion issued   Court of Appeals' judgment affirmed
2015-01-30 Petition for Review granted under TRAP 59.1
2015-01-30 Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record Issued
2015-01-30 Petition for Review disposed Petition granted pursuant to TRAP 59.1
  This case was pending on merits briefs between October 28, 2014 and January 30, 2015.  
2014-10-28 Reply Brief (Petitioner)  
2014-10-10 Brief on the Merits (Respondent)  
2014-09-22 Brief on the Merits (Petitioner)  
2014-08-25 Case Record Filed  
2014-08-25 Record Requested in Petition for Review  
2014-08-22 Brief on the Merits Requested  
2014-07-25 Reply to Response (Petitioner)  
2014-07-10 Response to Petition (Respondent)  
2014-06-13 Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response  
2014-05-13 Case forwarded to Court
2014-05-12 Response Waiver filed  
2014-04-11 Petition for Review (Petitioner)  

Parties

Party Counsel Role
Rogers, Cristil
Mr. George L. Preston
Respondent
Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company
Mr. Gregory R. Ave
Petitioner
 
 

An unresolved request for UDJA fees can undermine the finality of a summary judgment

The Court dealt with what it called “the familiar issue of whether a trial court’s order ... is final for purposes of appeal.” This order came after a motion for summary judgment by an insurer (Farm Bureau), in which the trial court denied relief and ruled that the insurer did have a duty to cover the claims. Although both sides had requested attorney’s fees, the order made no mention of those requests — but it did contain a “Mother Hubbard” clause and made an award of court costs. Farm Bureau appealed the merits.

The court of appeals dismissed for want of jurisdiction, reasoning that the order could not be a final judgment because there was not a formal cross-motion for summary judgment filed by the insured. The Supreme Court disagreed that the lack of an underlying motion would deprive the judgment of force. Quoting its own decision in Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001), the Court explained that “[i]f the trial court’s intent to enter a final judgment is ‘clear from the order, then the order is final and appealable, even though the record does not provide an adequate basis for rendition of judgment.’ In that case, ‘the judgment is final—erroneous, but final.’” So that basis would not defeat jurisdiction here.

But the Supreme Court saw a second problem with jurisdiction, namely, that the trial court had not ruled on attorney’s fees. In contrast to the merits issue — where the order spoke directly to the claims — there was no mention of attorney’s fees in the order and no other indication in the record that the trial court’s order was meant to resolve the question of fees. “In the absence of evidence of the trial court’s intent with respect to the parties’ claims for attorney’s fees, we find that the trial court’s order did not dispose of all parties and claims.”

...
...