Mishawdria Freeman v. Annie Pevehouse ( 2002 )

Mishawdria Freeman v. Annie Pevehouse

  IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-01-114-CV

     MISHAWNDRIA FREEMAN,

                                                                         Appellant

     v.

     ANNIE PEVEHOUSE,

                                                                         Appellee

From the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court # 26,008-A

DISSENTING OPINION

      I agree with the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals: “The historical trend in default judgment cases is toward the liberal granting of new trials.” Norton v. Martinez, 935 S.W.2d 898, 901 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, no pet.) (citing Miller v. Miller, 903 S.W.2d 45, 47 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1995, no writ)). When the elements of the Craddock test are satisfied, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny the defendant a new trial. Director, State Employees Workers' Comp. Div. v. Evans, 889 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Tex. 1994).

      Based on Strackbein v. Prewitt, my view is that no reasonable interpretation of the evidence supports a finding that Allstate’s failure to answer the citation was the result of an intentional act or conscious indifference. Strackbein v. Prewitt, 671 S.W.2d 37, 39 (Tex. 1984). Citing Strackbein, the Supreme Court has consistently reversed denials of new trials under similar circumstances. See Evans, 889 S.W.2d at 271; Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Scott, 873 S.W.2d 381, 382 (Tex. 1994); Bank One, Texas, N.A. v. Moody, 830 S.W.2d 81, 85 (Tex. 1992).

      I would reverse the decision to deny the motion for a new trial and remand the cause with instructions that a new trial be granted.

                                                                   BILL VANCE

                                                                   Justice

Dissenting opinion delivered and filed May 29, 2002

Publish

>

Do not publish