Regina Nachael Howell Foster v. MacKie Wolf Zientz & Mann PC

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-20-00294-CV
___________________________
REGINA NACHAEL HOWELL FOSTER, Appellant
V.
MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, P.C., Appellee
On Appeal from the 48th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 048-317495-20
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel
Justice Womack concurs without opinion.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. Introduction
Appellant Regina Nachael Howell Foster, acting pro se, raises five issues
attacking the trial court’s granting of Appellee Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann PC’s (the
Law Firm) no-evidence motion for summary judgment. We sustain Foster’s argument
that the trial court erred by granting the Law Firm’s no-evidence motion for summary
judgment because the motion improperly sought a no-evidence summary judgment
on the affirmative defense of attorney immunity, for which it carried the burden of
proof. Further, even if the Law Firm could have sought a no-evidence summary
judgment on its own affirmative defense of immunity, attorney immunity does not
provide a defense to the full range of claims made by Foster. Thus, we reverse and
remand this case to the trial court.
II. Factual and Procedural Background
We struggle to interpret Foster’s pleadings and the contours of her claims. In
essence, her original petition challenged the validity of a foreclosure on her home (the
property). Her suit, however, was not brought against the lienholder or the company
servicing the loan. Instead, she sued the Law Firm, which apparently represented the
lienholder and servicer during the foreclosure process. Foster also sued various
persons named as substitute trustees under the deed of trust creating the lien against
the property. After granting summary judgment to the Law Firm, the trial court
severed the claims against the Law Firm from those made against parties acting as
2
substitute trustees; this appeal deals only with the summary judgment granted in favor
of the Law Firm.
As best we can glean from her pleadings, Foster claims that the Law Firm made
a number of errors in how it conducted the foreclosure. Her petition highlights
several communications passing between her and the Law Firm that occurred during
the foreclosure process. The communications were as follows: (1) a November 30,
2016 letter from the Law Firm to Foster asserting that a default occurred on the
indebtedness involving the property and that the Law Firm would collect the
indebtedness and enforce the deed-of-trust lien securing the indebtedness; (2) a
December 15, 2016 letter from Foster to the Law Firm demanding proof of the
indebtedness referenced in the November 30 letter that Foster claims the Law Firm
did not respond to; (3) a March 1, 2017 collection letter, which allegedly included an
unsigned notice of foreclosure sale stating that a sale would be conducted on April 4,
2017, and which listed the names of individuals employed by the Law Firm who
purported to act as substitute trustees to conduct the sale; and (4) an April 12, 2017
letter from the Law Firm to Foster that informed her that a foreclosure sale had
occurred and that gave her notice to vacate the property.
Foster’s petition then itemizes the errors that she claims occurred during the
foreclosure process—such as improper acceleration of the indebtedness, improper
appointment of substitute trustees who would enforce the terms of the deed of trust,
and a violation of her rights under the Texas Constitution due to the lien against her
3
homestead being invalid because she did not sign the note creating the
indebtedness—and includes claims that appear to be for trespass to try title and to
quiet title. The petition also sought a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants
in the suit from evicting Foster from the property; the trial court denied Foster’s
temporary-injunction request.
Foster’s claims that form the crux of this opinion are that the Law Firm not
only made mistakes in how it conducted the foreclosure but also violated the
provisions of the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act (TDCPA), which is found in
the Texas Finance Code. It appears that Foster claims that the Law Firm violated
Section 392.202 of the Finance Code by failing to respond to her demand for
verification of the debt she allegedly owed and by not ceasing collection efforts until
providing that verification. She also contends that the representations made by the
Law Firm in the various letters described above were actionable misrepresentations
under the TDCPA.
Before the suit reached its disposition by summary judgment, a number of
procedural steps occurred. The Law Firm filed an original and amended Rule 91a
motion to dismiss; Foster responded to those motions. The record contains no ruling
on these motions. The suit was removed to federal court and then remanded. Foster
filed a motion to recuse a visiting judge who had heard her motion to reconsider the
denial of her request for a temporary injunction; that motion was denied.
4
After this sequence of events, the Law Firm filed a no-evidence motion for
summary judgment. Foster responded. A few days after Foster filed her response,
the Law Firm filed an amended no-evidence motion for summary judgment.
The extent of the grounds stated in the Law Firm’s amended motion are as
follows:
A. [The Law Firm] is entitled to summary judgment on [Foster’s] claims.
A. {No[-]Evidence Ground.} [Foster] asserts no cause of
action [that] applies to [the Law Firm] outside of its role as
foreclosure counsel.
1. {No[-]Evidence Ground.} [The Law Firm] is shielded by
attorney immunity.
B. {No[-]Evidence Ground.} [Foster] fails to assert, as a
matter of law, a cause of action against [the Law Firm that]
would entitle her to relief.
1. {No[-]Evidence Ground} [Foster] cannot prove the
necessary elements of her causes of action.
The motion primarily focused on the Law Firm’s assertion that attorney immunity
shielded it from Foster’s claims and then set forth brief discussions of the issues of
wrongful foreclosure, the TDCPA, declaratory judgment, suit to quiet title, and
injunctive relief. To the motion, the Law Firm attached a federal district court
memorandum and opinion and order granting summary judgment on Foster’s claims
against, among others, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., one of the defendants in
this case and the Fifth Circuit opinion affirming that summary judgment.
5
Foster did not file a response to the amended motion. The trial court granted
the amended no-evidence motion, ordered that Foster take nothing on her claims
against the Law Firm, and dismissed those claims with prejudice.
The granting of the amended motion produced more activity that spanned two
years. Foster filed a motion for new trial that alleged that the trial court had erred by
granting a summary judgment “by default,” that Foster’s failure to appear at the
summary-judgment hearing was not the result of conscious indifference, that the trial
court should have considered Foster’s pleading filed in response to the Law Firm’s
original no-evidence summary-judgment motion, that there was evidence that the Law
Firm had acted as a debt collector and was liable under the TDCPA, that the deed-of-
trust lien on the property was invalid, that the note secured by the lien was improperly
accelerated, that the document creating the indebtedness and lien violated the statute
of frauds, and that the doctrine of res judicata did not bar her claims. The trial court
denied the motion for new trial.
About a year after the trial court denied Foster’s motion for new trial, she filed
a “Motion to Set Aside Interlocutory Order [on] No[-]Evidence [Motion for]
Summary Judgment for Intrinsic Fraud.” As best we can interpret, the motion’s
grounds are that the Law Firm had not disclosed a notice of acceleration sent with
respect to the debt at issue, that acceleration triggered the accrual of a cause of action
on the indebtedness, and that enforcement of the indebtedness was barred by
limitations by the time the Law Firm had sent Foster correspondence regarding the
6
foreclosure. In Foster’s view, the Law Firm committed a fraud that undermined the
Law Firm’s ability to claim immunity from her claims. Foster also reiterated that the
lien against the property was void. The Law Firm responded. Foster then filed a
motion to strike the Law Firm’s response to the motion to set aside. The trial court
denied the motion to set aside.
The Law Firm then filed a motion to sever Foster’s claims against it into a
separate cause. Foster objected to the requested severance. The trial court granted
the motion to sever. Foster then filed a motion for new trial. The trial court did not
sign a written order with respect to that motion. Foster filed a notice of appeal.
III. Analysis
A. We apply a de novo standard of review.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil
& Gas Co., 331 S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. 2010) (op. on reh’g). We cannot “‘read
between the lines’ or infer from the pleadings any grounds for granting the summary
judgment other than those grounds expressly set forth before the trial court.” Nall v.
Plunkett, 404 S.W.3d 552, 555 (Tex. 2013). “A motion for summary judgment must
stand or fall on its own merits.” Haver v. Coats, 491 S.W.3d 877, 881 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.).
7
B. Foster’s brief includes contentions regarding why the Law Firm’s
amended no-evidence motion for summary judgment violated the
provisions of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i).
Though buried deeply within the verbiage of her brief, Foster targets
deficiencies in the Law Firm’s amended no-evidence motion for summary judgment.
She highlights that a party seeking summary judgment on an affirmative defense
carries the burden of establishing that defense as a matter of law. She concludes her
argument by highlighting that she sued the Law Firm for acts outside its role as
counsel for the lienholder and servicer and that the Law Firm attempted to shift the
burden of proof to her on its own affirmative defense:
Conclusionary averments that [the Law Firm’s] “alleged failure to
respond to a demand from [Foster] to verify the debt” did not prove
that [the Law Firm had] complied with the Texas Debt Collection
Practice[s] Act when [she] did not sign the [p]romissory [n]ote or that
[the Law Firm] complied with [Section] 51.002(d) by proving that they
“serve[d] a debtor in default under a deed of trust” as required by the
plain meaning of Tex. Prop. Code [Ann. Section] 51.002(d). Rule 166a(i)
does not authorize general no-evidence challenges or conclusory
motions. Cmty. Health Sys. Prof’l Servs. Corp. v. Hansen, 525 S.W.3d 671,
695 (Tex. 2017) (citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i); Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish,
286 S.W.3d 306, 310 (Tex. 2009)). [The Law Firm] cannot shift [its]
burden to prove [its] affirmative defense of attorney immunity by simply
claiming that Foster “has not ple[aded] any facts to show that [the Law
Firm] was acting outside its capacity as foreclosure counsel for the other
defendants.”[1] [Footnotes omitted.]
1
Foster’s issues on appeal do not specifically mention the technical failings of
the Law Firm’s no-evidence motion, but as noted above, she raises various attacks on
the propriety of the Law Firm’s use of a no-evidence motion for summary judgment.
Based on the specific argument that we quoted from her brief, we conclude that the
argument attacking the form of the motion is embraced by the issues that she raises
and that it is a subsidiary issue fairly raised by her statement of issues. See Tex. R.
8
C. The strictures governing a no-evidence motion for summary
judgment state that the motion can challenge only claims and
defenses for which an adverse party has the burden of proof.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) controls the form of a no-evidence
motion for summary judgment. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). The rule permits a party to
move for summary judgment “on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more
essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the
burden of proof at trial.” Id. The rule continues with a strict requirement that the
motion “must state the elements as to which there is no evidence.” Id. Rule 166a’s
comment, which speaks to the form of a no-evidence motion, is equally strict; the
comment provides that a no-evidence motion “must be specific in challenging the
evidentiary support for an element of a claim or defense” and that the rule “does not
authorize conclusory motions or general no-evidence challenges to an opponent’s
case.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i) cmt. (West 1997).
As Justice Brett Busby explained while he served on the Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, the text of Rule 166a(i) means that “a defendant cannot use a no-evidence
motion for summary judgment to establish an affirmative defense.” Haver, 491
S.W.3d at 881. The court in Haver detailed the basis for its holding as follows:
This result[—that a party cannot use a no-evidence motion for summary
judgment to establish its own affirmative defense—]follows from the
plain language of Rule 166a(i), which provides that a no-evidence motion
can only be used to establish the inapplicability of a “defense on which
App. P. 38.1(f) (“The statement of an issue or point will be treated as covering every
subsidiary issue that is fairly included.”).
9
an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial[.]” [Emphasis
added.] Although a plaintiff may move for no-evidence summary
judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more
essential elements of an affirmative defense that the defendant alleged
and has the burden to prove, a defendant must file a traditional motion
for summary judgment if it wishes to establish each element of that
defense as a matter of law. See FDIC v. Lenk, 361 S.W.3d 602, 609 (Tex.
2012) (“‘When a defendant moves for summary judgment based on an
affirmative defense, . . . the defendant, as movant, bears the burden of
proving each essential element of that defense.’” (quoting Ryland Grp.,
Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 121 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam))).
Id. at 881–82.
Attorney immunity is an affirmative defense, which the attorney carries the
burden of proving. Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tex. 2015)
(“Attorney immunity is an affirmative defense. Therefore, to be entitled to summary
judgment, [appellant] must have proven that there was no genuine issue of material
fact as to whether its conduct was protected by the attorney-immunity doctrine and
that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (citation omitted)).
Also, a summary-judgment motion does not lose its no-evidence character
simply because a party attaches evidence to what is clearly intended as a no-evidence
motion. As the Texas Supreme Court has held, “if a motion brought solely under
subsection (i) [of Rule 166a] attaches evidence, that evidence should not be
considered unless it creates a fact question, but such a motion should not be
disregarded or treated as a motion under subsection (a) or (b) [of Rule 166a].” Binur v.
Jacobo, 135 S.W.3d 646, 650–51 (Tex. 2004).
10
D. The Law Firm’s no-evidence motion improperly sought summary
judgment on an affirmative defense for which it carried the burden
of proof, and even if it could assert that defense in a no-evidence
motion, that defense did not immunize the Law Firm from the full
extent of Foster’s claims.
The Law Firm’s amended motion for summary judgment fails as a no-evidence
motion because the motion seeks summary judgment on an issue for which it carries
the burden of proof, and even if the Law Firm could justify that use of a no-evidence
motion, immunity is not a defense to all of the claims that Foster made. Because we
resolve this appeal purely on a procedural basis, our resolution of this appeal does not
offer any opinion about the merits of Foster’s claims.
Again, the Law Firm’s amended no-evidence motion’s first ground is as
follows:
A. {No[-]Evidence Ground.} [Foster] asserts no cause of action
[that] applies to [the Law Firm] outside of its role as foreclosure
counsel.
1. {No[-]Evidence Ground.} [The Law Firm] is shielded by
attorney immunity.
In discussing this ground, the Law Firm’s brief appears to recognize that the
procedural vehicle of a no-evidence motion for summary judgment is mismatched to
a party’s effort to establish its own affirmative defense. The Law Firm’s effort to use
a no-evidence motion for this purpose, in and of itself, warrants reversal of this case.
See Haver, 481 S.W.3d at 883 (“Here, for reasons not disclosed in the record,
appellants filed only a no-evidence motion for summary judgment on their affirmative
11
defense of qualified immunity. This motion was not an appropriate procedural
vehicle for establishing their affirmative defense without a trial.”).
Nor are we persuaded by the Law Firm’s argument that the special
circumstances of this case warrant the mismatch of a no-evidence summary-judgment
motion raising the party’s own affirmative defense. The Law Firm argues that
because Foster pleaded her way into the defense, the Law Firm could use a no-
evidence motion to place the burden on Foster to raise a fact issue regarding why the
defense should not apply. The Law Firm’s argument for this use of a no-evidence
motion is as follows:
[Foster’s] pleading that [the Law Firm’s] conduct as counsel for [the
mortgagee and its servicer] gave . . . rise to her claims is a sufficient
factual basis to support a conclusion that [the Law Firm’s] conduct was
protected by attorney immunity. See Bethel v. Quilling, 595 S.W.3d 651,
656 (Tex. 2020) (holding that trial court could consider Rule 91a motion
to dismiss based on attorney immunity where plaintiff plead[ed] that
defendant-lawyer’s conduct as opposing counsel form[ed] the factual
basis of his claims). Once it was established in [Foster’s] pleading that
[the Law Firm] was entitled to the defense of attorney immunity, the
burden of proof shifted to [Foster] to present facts that would show that
[the Law Firm’s] conduct was outside the protections of attorney
immunity. See id. . . . ; Troice v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 921 F.3d 501,
5[0]5–06 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Aliazarov v. Joiner, No. 05-00-01593-CV,
[2001 WL 1256439, at *2] (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 22, 2001, no pet.)
[(not designated for publication)] (where plaintiff’s pleading established
defendant’s right to sovereign immunity, defendant could properly
compel plaintiff under Rule 166a(i) to produce evidence of an exception
to the defense) ([citing] Guillen v. City of San Antonio, 13 S.W.3d 428, 432
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied)). It is within this shifted
burden of proof where [the Law Firm] brought its no-evidence motion
for summary judgment under Rule 166a(i). [Record citations omitted.]
12
Even if we accepted the premise of this argument that the Law Firm could shift the
burden of proof to Foster, the argument has a fundamental flaw in its premise that
attorney immunity, even if properly raised in a no-evidence motion, would be a
defense to all of the claims that Foster asserted.
The amended no-evidence motion itself made clear that the Law Firm took the
position that attorney immunity was a full protection from Foster’s claims:
[Foster] has not ple[aded] any facts to show that [the Law Firm] was
acting outside its capacity as foreclosure counsel for the other
defendants. Accordingly, [Foster’s] claims against [the Law Firm] have
no basis in law because [the Law Firm] was acting at all times as
foreclosure counsel and is immune from suit under the doctrine of
attorney immunity.
The motion’s and the argument’s premise ignores that claims made by Foster,
specifically her claims under the TDCPA, are not predicated on the Law Firm’s
status as the legal counsel for the lienholder and the servicer. Instead, that claim
is predicated on the Law Firm’s status as a debt collector with statutory duties
running to the person from whom it is attempting to collect the debt. As a
federal court has explained, the TDCPA imposes duties on a debt collector as
follows:
“The TDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using various forms of
threatening, coercive, harassing[,] or abusive conduct to collect debts
from consumers.” Merryman v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 3:12-CV-
2156-MBH, 2012 WL 5409735, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 2012), rec.
adopted, 2012 WL 5409749 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2012). The Act defines
“debt collector,” in relevant part, as “a person who directly or indirectly
engages in debt collection.” Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.001(6) (West
2006). “Debt collection” is defined as “an action, conduct, or practice in
13
collecting, or in soliciting for collection[] consumer debts that are due or
alleged to be due a creditor.” Id. § 392.001(5). Debt collection can
include “actions taken in foreclosing real property.” Sanghera v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:10-CV-2414-B, 2012 WL 555155, at *7 (N.D.
Tex. Feb. 21, 2012) (citation omitted); Swim v. Bank of Am., No. 3:11-CV-
1240-M, 2012 WL 170758, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2012). Defendants’
foreclosure may therefore fall within the purview of the TDCPA. See
Sanghera, 2012 WL 555155, at *7.
Lombardi v. Bank of Am., No. 3:13-cv-1464-O, 2014 WL 988541, at *13 (N.D. Tex.
Mar. 13, 2014) (order accepting findings and recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge). Thus, the Law Firm’s immunity argument and Foster’s TDCPA
claims are like ships passing in the night: they may cross paths and exchange signals
with each other, but they fail to connect in a procedurally dispositive manner. The
Law Firm is not sued in its capacity as counsel for the lienholder and servicer but in a
separate capacity as a debt collector, for which the defense of attorney immunity has
no application because debt-collector status involves duties running directly from the
Law Firm to Foster.
The motion is also deficient in another way. The argument section of the
amended no-evidence motion lists the elements of a TDCPA claim, and the extent of
its argument is as follows:
[Foster] cannot show that a wrongful act was committed nor that the
wrongful act resulted in injury to [her]. This failure is based upon
[Foster’s] prior unsuccessful attempts to invalidate the lien on her
Property. Two courts have roundly rejected her contention that the
Deed of Trust on her Property was invalid. [Foster’s] basis for a
TDC[P]A violation . . . entails allegations that [the Law Firm]
misrepresented the character, extent, or amount of the consumer debt.
In other words, [the Law Firm] allegedly misrepresented that the Deed
14
of Trust created a valid lien, which [Foster] disputes. However, the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed with
prejudice [Foster’s] attempt to invalidate the Deed of Trust, and said
dismissal was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Accordingly, [Foster] has provided insufficient evidence to show a
wrongful action committed by [the Law Firm] under the TDC[P]A.
[Exhibit and record citations omitted.]
This argument characterizes Foster’s TDCPA claim and then, at best,
challenges Foster to produce evidence with respect to the claim as the Law Firm
characterized it. But that characterization ignores the full extent of Foster’s TDCPA
claims and does not challenge her claim that the Law Firm violated Section 392.202 of
the TDCPA by responding to and stopping collection efforts when Foster requested
verification of the debt. See Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 392.202 (dealing with correction of
third-party debt collector’s files). The motion does not challenge Foster to produce
evidence of the elements of this claim.
Admittedly, a party may challenge a distinct factual theory when the motion ties
that factual theory to a particular element of a claim or defense. Horton v. Stovall,
No. 05-16-00744-CV, 2020 WL 7640042, at *16 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 23, 2020,
no pet.) (mem. op. on remand). The Law Firm does not invoke that rule by arguing
that Foster’s claims should be fragmented into different factual categories nor by
arguing that it should receive a summary judgment on a subset of Foster’s TDCPA
claims. The Law Firm’s no-evidence summary-judgment motion sought to obtain a
judgment denying Foster’s TDCPA claims in total, and under the ground it stated, the
15
Law Firm was not entitled to that judgment because its motion failed to attack the full
extent of those claims.
Further, the argument attacking Foster’s TDCPA claims appears to subtly raise
the issue of collateral estoppel, i.e., a court has resolved a question central to Foster’s
claim adversely to her. See In re Estate of Howard, 543 S.W.3d 397, 401 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) (“The doctrine of issue preclusion, also
known as collateral estoppel, precludes relitigating issues decided in a previous action
even though a later action is based on a different claim.”). But issue preclusion is also
an affirmative defense, which the Law Firm carried the burden on and which should
have been raised by a traditional—rather than a no-evidence—motion for summary
judgment. See Bridgestone Lakes Cmty. Improvement Ass’n v. Bridgestone Lakes Dev. Co., 489
S.W.3d 118, 127 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (“Because
collateral estoppel [issue preclusion] is an affirmative defense, the Defendants had the
burden of proving its applicability, and they were required to do so on traditional
grounds.”). To its motion, the Law Firm attached prior judicial opinions as evidence
that the issues that Foster raised in her suit against the Law Firm had been decided
adversely to her. But as we have noted, a motion clearly denominated a no-evidence
motion—as was the Law Firm’s motion—is not transformed into a traditional
motion merely because it has evidence attached to it. See Binur, 135 S.W.3d at 650–
51.
16
Next, the Law Firm’s argument that Foster pleaded her way into the immunity
defense is not enunciated in the amended no-evidence motion. As noted, a summary-
judgment motion must stand or fall on its own merits, and we cannot read between
the lines to discern its grounds. Haver, 491 S.W.3d at 881. As presented to the trial
court, the Law Firm’s amended motion simply states that it is based on the defense of
immunity; it does not state a ground or offer an explanation for why Foster had the
obligation to, in essence, disprove the Law Firm’s affirmative defense.
Finally, regarding the Law Firm’s effort to use a no-evidence motion as a
vehicle to raise its own affirmative defense, we are unsure how far the supreme court’s
ruling in Bethel—which dealt with attorney immunity in the context of a Rule 91a
motion to dismiss—can be stretched to apply to the different procedural context of a
Rule 166a(i) motion for summary judgment. Bethel’s holding did not involve or
mention summary-judgment practice. See 595 S.W.3d at 656. But we do not reach
the question of whether a carefully tailored no-evidence motion may raise the issue
that a party pleaded its way into the defense of attorney immunity and thus bore the
burden to raise a fact issue regarding why the defense did not apply. The Law Firm’s
amended no-evidence motion was not tailored to raise that argument or to state that
ground. We therefore sustain the argument, fairly subsumed within Foster’s issues,
that attacks the form of the Law Firm’s no-evidence motion. Because this argument
is dispositive of the appeal, we need not address Foster’s remaining arguments. See
Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
17
IV. Conclusion
Having sustained Foster’s attack on the defective form of the Law Firm’s no-
evidence motion, which is dispositive of her appeal, we reverse the trial court’s grant
of summary judgment and remand this case to the trial court.
/s/ Dabney Bassel
Dabney Bassel
Justice
Delivered: March 25, 2021
18