Summary
This is a dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court of Texas concerning the allocation of burdens on a traditional summary-judgment motion based on limitations. The dissent argues that, after the defendant establishes that limitations has run, the plaintiff must produce some evidence of unsound mind to invoke tolling under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 16.001. The underlying dispute involves a deed conveying inherited real property and the petitioner’s alleged lack of mental capacity when executing it.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant moving for traditional summary judgment on limitations must conclusively negate unsound-mind tolling even when the plaintiff has produced no evidence supporting that tolling doctrine.
- Whether unsound-mind tolling under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 16.001 affects the accrual date or instead merely tolls the limitations period after accrual.
- Whether the plaintiff bears the burden of producing some evidence of unsound mind after the defendant establishes the accrual date and expiration of the applicable limitations period.
Holdings
- The dissent would hold that, after a defendant establishes the accrual date and proves that the applicable limitations period has expired, the plaintiff must produce some evidence of unsound mind to raise a fact issue and avoid traditional summary judgment.
- The dissent would conclude that Johnson conclusively established that limitations had run and that Draughon failed to produce evidence creating a fact issue on unsound-mind tolling; therefore, Johnson was entitled to traditional summary judgment.
Key quotations
“Once a defendant proves with competent summary-judgment evidence that limitations has run, the plaintiff must respond with some evidence of unsound mind to defeat summary judgment.” (at 3)
“The mere assertion of unsound mind, however, does not raise a fact issue that overcomes the evidence otherwise establishing that limitations has run.” (at 6-7)
“We should uphold the legal presumption of sound mind in the absence of any proof to the contrary.” (at 17)
Factual background
Draughon alleged that he inherited Kaufman County property and conveyed it to his aunt, Joycie Johnson, in 2006 for ten dollars and other consideration. He claimed the deed was unenforceable because he lacked mental capacity to sign it. He did not file suit until April 26, 2018, approximately eleven years after execution of the deed, and presented no evidence sufficient, in the dissent's view, to create a fact issue concerning unsound mind during the limitations period.
Procedural history
Draughon sued Johnson in 2018, alleging that a 2006 deed conveying inherited property was unenforceable because he lacked mental capacity to execute it. Johnson moved for traditional summary judgment based on the applicable four-year statute of limitations and attached the deed. The trial court struck Draughon's responsive evidence as conclusory and granted summary judgment, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding that Draughon failed to produce evidence of unsound mind sufficient to raise a fact issue on tolling. Justice Bland dissented from the Supreme Court's contrary disposition.