eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2019-08

Brad Michael Ryes v. Dianne Richard Ross ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  • Concurring opinion issued August 20, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-00693-CV
———————————
BRAD MICHAEL RYES, Appellant
V.
DIANNE RICHARD ROSS, Appellee
On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. CI56457
CONCURRING OPINION
The majority opinion, and the position taken by this Court in Medina v. Tate,
    438 S.W.3d 583 
    (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.), stand for the
proposition that every casual trip out of the state tolls the statute of limitations for
that length of time. In other words, if I go out of state to visit relatives one weekend,
and then go to a judicial seminar in Washington a few months later, the statute of
limitations for any suit against me is extended for four days, or five if it was a long
weekend. This despite the fact that I remained subject to the jurisdiction of Texas
courts the entire time. I believe this is an absurd result, something we are instructed
to avoid when interpreting statutes. See Jose Carreras, M.D., P.A. v. Marroquin,
    339 S.W.3d 68
    , 73 (Tex. 2011). Limitations periods are favored because they
provide a date certain which gives proper notice to both plaintiffs and defendants
and prevents the litigation of stale claims. See Matthews Constr. Co. v. Rosen,
    796 S.W.2d 692
    , 694 (Tex. 1990). The policies behind statutes of limitation are not
thwarted when section 16.063 is applied only if the potential defendant cannot be
located or is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. Further, this result puts us at odds
with our sister court which has held just the opposite. See Zavadil v. Safeco Ins. Co.,
    309 S.W.3d 593
    , 595–96 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). The
reasoning of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Zavadil, and that of Justice Brown,
in his dissent in Medina, would lead to a far more reasonable and logical result than
that proposed by the majority. However, since there is binding precedent on the
matter from this Court, I am compelled to concur with the majority opinion.
2
Russell Lloyd
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Landau, and Countiss.
Justice Lloyd, concurring.
3