Robert Twist v. Roel "Robie" Flores

Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-03-00171-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 13, 2010; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Robert Twist appeals the dismissal of his case for lack of jurisdiction, denial of his motion to reinstate, and the granting of a summary judgment in favor of one appellee, Roel "Robie" Flores. Twist argues that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the case, claiming a bankruptcy stay related to one appellee should apply to others due to intertwined issues, and contends he exercised due diligence. Additionally, he asserts error in the trial court's refusal to reinstate the case and failure to provide findings of fact. The background involves Twist's allegation that his former wife, Brenda Griggs, fraudulently transferred $175,000 from his account. He claims the funds were his separate property from a personal injury settlement and alleges a conspiracy involving Brenda, her attorney Darlene Vale, and other parties to defraud him. After filing the suit in 1999, there was significant inaction until the Guerra appellees moved to dismiss for want of prosecution in 2003. Witnesses at the hearing testified that Twist sought trial setting information but was advised on the procedures to obtain it. Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions.

Twist testified that he advised another party, Twist, to address trial setting issues with the court coordinator. Twist filed a motion for trial setting on April 18, 2000, and made multiple visits and phone calls to the coordinator's office, who indicated that he would receive written notice regarding the trial date. Although Twist claimed he was prepared for trial, he acknowledged that no significant actions were taken to pursue the case in 2003, aside from an affidavit filed when he obtained counsel, and he did not make a written request for trial setting after April 2000. He refrained from inquiring about trial setting during 2001 and 2002 to avoid being bothersome, believing he could obtain the same information from the docket.

At a hearing on March 10, 2003, Femia Rodriguez, the former court coordinator, testified that she informed Twist there was no trial setting when he contacted her. Joel Espinosa, the current coordinator since 2001, confirmed that there had been no activity in the case since June 2000, except for one docket control conference, indicating that Twist had not actively pursued the case.

Twist argues that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing his case for want of prosecution, claiming he acted with due diligence and was denied a fair opportunity to be heard. The standard of review for such dismissals is clear abuse of discretion, defined as acting without guiding principles or in an arbitrary manner. The trial court's authority to dismiss for want of prosecution is derived from Rule 165a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and its inherent power. Under Rule 165a, a court may dismiss a case if a party seeking affirmative relief fails to appear for a hearing or trial with proper notice, or if the case is not resolved within established time standards. A party must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before a dismissal occurs. The trial court assesses due diligence based on the case's history, including the duration it has been filed, the level of activity, requests for trial settings, and any reasonable excuses for delays.

In Polk v. Sw. Crossing Homeowners Ass'n, the court examined factors influencing the determination of due diligence in a legal case, including attempts to serve defendants, the duration of the suit, and whether a motion to reinstate was filed. Due diligence is typically a factual question. A pro se litigant is held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. In this case, Twist made minimal efforts to progress his case, only requesting a trial setting once and seeking information from court personnel, without undertaking necessary actions like discovery. The trial court reasonably concluded that Twist did not act as an ordinary prudent person would in similar circumstances, leading to its decision not to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. 

Twist also contested the trial court's failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law after an evidentiary hearing. While the court noted that findings are not mandatory in cases dismissed for want of prosecution without such hearings, it acknowledged that findings would have been appropriate in this instance, albeit not required. The court stated that even if findings were mandated, the outcome would remain unchanged, as the dismissal did not constitute an adjudication on the merits. There exists a general expectation for trial courts to fulfill requests for findings when timely made, with harm presumed unless the record indicates otherwise.

In Tenery v. Tenery, the Texas Supreme Court addressed the criteria for determining harm in legal rulings, clarifying that a party should not have to infer the trial court's reasons for a decision. The trial court conducted a thorough hearing on a motion to dismiss and explicitly stated that the plaintiff, Twist, did not comply with procedural rules. The court found no miscarriage of justice and concluded that Twist's case was not pursued with due diligence, indicating that any lack of findings of fact was not harmful to Twist.

Regarding the issue of abatement, Twist argued that the trial court erred by not halting proceedings after Brenda filed for bankruptcy. The court agreed that a previous ruling established that actions against a debtor under bankruptcy protection are void. Since Twist initiated his claims against Brenda after the bankruptcy stay was in effect, she was considered not a party to the trial court action. Claims against non-debtor parties were deemed independent and not reliant on the outcome of the action against Brenda, resulting in the overruling of Twist's argument.

On the matter of summary judgment, Twist contended that the trial court mistakenly granted Vale's motion despite genuine material fact disputes over fraud and conspiracy, which do not require a contractual relationship. The standard for reviewing such motions involves determining whether any material fact issues exist that prevent a judgment as a matter of law. The court emphasized that the movant must negate essential cause-of-action elements or establish affirmative defenses conclusively. It also noted that evidence must be viewed favorably to the non-movant, with reasonable inferences drawn in their favor.

Vale sought summary judgment, asserting she owed no duty to Twist, supported by an affidavit detailing her adversarial relationship with him due to her representation of his ex-wife in a divorce. Twist countered, claiming negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, and intentional misconduct against Vale. However, Texas law generally protects attorneys from liability for actions taken in the course of representing a client, as established in several case precedents. The court emphasized that allowing such claims could hinder attorneys from vigorously defending their clients, ultimately harming the justice system. Exceptions exist for negligent misrepresentation or when an attorney engages in personal theft or deceit on behalf of a client. The court concluded that the evidence demonstrated Vale owed no duty to Twist, and Twist failed to provide evidence to dispute this. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.