A recent decision from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals highlights the continuing division among the intermediate appellate courts about implicit rulings on summary-judgment evidence. In Parkway Dental Associates, P.A. v. Ho & Huang Properties, L.P., the movant argued that language in the summary-judgment order indicated that the trial court had implicitly sustained its objections to the nonmovant's summary-judgment evidence by granting summary judgment. No. 14-10-01239-CV, 2012 WL 6624925 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 20, 2012, no pet. h.). The court noted that a decision from the Fort Worth Court of Appeals supported the movant's argument. But the Fourteenth Court of Appeals had already rejected that approach to rulings on summary-judgment evidence.
This case highlights a continuing split among the intermediate courts about whether a summary-judgment ruling also implicitly rules on objections to summary-judgment evidence. The courts have uniformly rejected the argument that merely granting summary judgment is an implicit ruling on objections to summary-judgment evidence. But a split continues about whether a statement in the summary-judgment order that the court considered "proper" or "competent" evidence reveals an implicit ruling. The Fort Worth and El Paso courts have found implicit rulings based on such language. But most of the courts have held that an explicit ruling is required.
Significantly, as the court in Parkway Dental Associates noted, the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on this division. Until it does, the best practice is to get written rulings on objections to summary-judgment evidence. My next post will look at some cases that have held that those written rulings can be secured even after the court has entered summary judgment.
Comments