MAJORITYOPINION
TIM TAFT, Justice.
Postive Feed, Inc. (Postive),1 appeals a no-evidence summary judgment granted on the motion of appellee, Marcus Guth-mann. The underlying suit is an attempt by Postive to recover costs, from a prior unemployment action, from which the Labor Code exempts employees. We address whether the trial erred: (1) by granting the summary judgment without permitting Postive an opportunity to amend its pleadings; (2) by granting summary judgment on the merits; and (3) by granting summary judgment on issues not addressed in the motion and by shifting the burden of proof. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Facts and Procedural History
In a prior action in the court below, Postive sued to set aside unemployment benefits awarded Guthmann, a former Pos-tive employee. Postive prevailed in that action and then sued Guthmann again in the same trial court. Postive’s pleadings alleged two grounds for recovery. The first sought recovery in tort, in the form of damages for attorney’s fees and costs, plus punitive damages, on the grounds that Guthmann had claimed the unemployment benefits in bad faith and had thus “abused the civil process.” In its second ground for recovery, Postive acknowledged that the Labor Code2 precluded any such recovery against Guthmann, but asked the trial court to declare the bar unconstitutional. Guthmann’s answer asserted a general denial, estoppel as an affirmative defense, and claims for sanctions for groundless and frivolous pleadings.
Guthmann sought summary judgment on two grounds: that he was entitled to prevail under the new “no evidence” rule for summary judgments, Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(i); and that Postive had had not brought forward any evidence of damages, nor stated a claim on which the trial court could grant relief. The motion did not address Postive’s challenge to the constitutionality of section 207.007. In responding to the motion, Postive reasserted many allegations from its petition, and noted that Guthmann had not filed special exceptions to those pleadings. Postive further contended the Labor Code did not apply, because Postive was not seeking relief under the Labor Code, but in tort. Finally, Postive argued it had “no other vehicle in which to seek justice.” Like Guthmann, [881]*881Postive did not refer at all to its challenge to the constitutionality of section 207.007.
The trial court signed an order granting Guthmann’s motion “in all things.” In addition, the court’s order recited “that the allegations by [Postive] are hereby dismissed for no admissible evidence with prejudice as to refiling same.” Although neither party addressed Postive’s constitutional challenge to section 207.007 of the Labor Code, the reporter’s record of the summary judgment hearing nevertheless reflects the parties’ contemplation that Postive might address that issue in this Court.
Summary Judgment Granted More Relief Than Requested
In a portion of its third point of error, Postive argues that the trial erred by granting summary judgment on issues not raised by Guthmann’s motion for summary judgment.3 We agree.
The trial court’s order granting summary judgment does not contain a true “Mother Hubbard” clause that disposes of all claims. See Mafrige v. Ross, 866 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex.1993); North E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 897-98 (Tex.1966). The order clearly purports to be final, however, and Postive treated the judgment as final in timely perfecting this appeal, without objection by Guthmann. From the record before us, we conclude that the trial court and the parties contemplated finality. See Inglish v. Union State Bank, 945 S.W.2d 810, 811 (Tex.1997).
In disposing of all claims, however, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment clearly grants more relief than Guthmann requested. In relying strictly on the prohibition in section 207.007 of the Labor Code, Guthmann did not address Postive’s challenge to the constitutionality of that statute. The trial court erred, therefore, in dismissing the entire case. See Bandera Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Gilchrist, 946 S.W.2d 336, 337 (Tex.1997); Mafrige, 866 S.W.2d at 592.
When, as here, a trial court grants more relief by summary judgment than requested, by disposing of issues never presented to it, the interests of judicial economy demand that we reverse and remand as to those issues, but address the merits of the properly presented claims, Bandera, 946 S.W.2d at 337 (expressly approving procedure followed by the court of appeals on remand in Mafrige); see Ross v. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., 892 S.W.2d 119, 123 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist. 1994, no writ).
Accordingly, we address the claim that Guthmann relied on in seeking summary judgment. Because Guthmann’s motion for summary judgment did not address Postive’s challenge to the constitutionality of section 207.007, however, we may not address the portion of Postive’s third point of error in which it argues that the statutory bar does not protect Guthmann from torts “such as ‘abuse of process’ or ‘malicious prosecution.’ ” See Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c) (“Issues not expressly presented to the trial court by written motion, answer or other response cannot be considered on appeal as grounds for reversal.”); City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 676 (Tex.1979) (same); see also Summers v. Fort Crockett Hotel, Ltd., 902 S.W.2d 20, 27 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied) (rejecting point not presented to the trial court in opposition to motion for summary judgment). We will reverse and remand, therefore, for disposition of Postive’s unresolved ehal-[882]*882lenge to the constitutionality of section 207.007, under the Mafrige and Bandera mandates.4 Thus, we sustain Postive’s third point of error in part.
Tort Theory of Recovery
In its first and second points of error, Postive maintains the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for failure to state a cause of action, without affording Postive an opportunity to re-plead. Postive’s second point of error challenges the trial court’s “no evidence” resolution. In the portion of its third point of error not addressed above, Postive maintains the trial court impermissibly shifted the burden of proof. We address these issues together.
A summary judgment “should not be based on a pleading deficiency that could be cured by amendment.” In re B.I.V., 870 S.W.2d 12, 13-14 (Tex.1994) (per curiam). Summary judgment is not the proper vehicle to test the adequacy of the other party’s pleadings, which should be attacked by special exceptions. See Texas Dep’t of Corrections v. Herring,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MAJORITYOPINION
TIM TAFT, Justice.
Postive Feed, Inc. (Postive),1 appeals a no-evidence summary judgment granted on the motion of appellee, Marcus Guth-mann. The underlying suit is an attempt by Postive to recover costs, from a prior unemployment action, from which the Labor Code exempts employees. We address whether the trial erred: (1) by granting the summary judgment without permitting Postive an opportunity to amend its pleadings; (2) by granting summary judgment on the merits; and (3) by granting summary judgment on issues not addressed in the motion and by shifting the burden of proof. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Facts and Procedural History
In a prior action in the court below, Postive sued to set aside unemployment benefits awarded Guthmann, a former Pos-tive employee. Postive prevailed in that action and then sued Guthmann again in the same trial court. Postive’s pleadings alleged two grounds for recovery. The first sought recovery in tort, in the form of damages for attorney’s fees and costs, plus punitive damages, on the grounds that Guthmann had claimed the unemployment benefits in bad faith and had thus “abused the civil process.” In its second ground for recovery, Postive acknowledged that the Labor Code2 precluded any such recovery against Guthmann, but asked the trial court to declare the bar unconstitutional. Guthmann’s answer asserted a general denial, estoppel as an affirmative defense, and claims for sanctions for groundless and frivolous pleadings.
Guthmann sought summary judgment on two grounds: that he was entitled to prevail under the new “no evidence” rule for summary judgments, Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(i); and that Postive had had not brought forward any evidence of damages, nor stated a claim on which the trial court could grant relief. The motion did not address Postive’s challenge to the constitutionality of section 207.007. In responding to the motion, Postive reasserted many allegations from its petition, and noted that Guthmann had not filed special exceptions to those pleadings. Postive further contended the Labor Code did not apply, because Postive was not seeking relief under the Labor Code, but in tort. Finally, Postive argued it had “no other vehicle in which to seek justice.” Like Guthmann, [881]*881Postive did not refer at all to its challenge to the constitutionality of section 207.007.
The trial court signed an order granting Guthmann’s motion “in all things.” In addition, the court’s order recited “that the allegations by [Postive] are hereby dismissed for no admissible evidence with prejudice as to refiling same.” Although neither party addressed Postive’s constitutional challenge to section 207.007 of the Labor Code, the reporter’s record of the summary judgment hearing nevertheless reflects the parties’ contemplation that Postive might address that issue in this Court.
Summary Judgment Granted More Relief Than Requested
In a portion of its third point of error, Postive argues that the trial erred by granting summary judgment on issues not raised by Guthmann’s motion for summary judgment.3 We agree.
The trial court’s order granting summary judgment does not contain a true “Mother Hubbard” clause that disposes of all claims. See Mafrige v. Ross, 866 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex.1993); North E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 897-98 (Tex.1966). The order clearly purports to be final, however, and Postive treated the judgment as final in timely perfecting this appeal, without objection by Guthmann. From the record before us, we conclude that the trial court and the parties contemplated finality. See Inglish v. Union State Bank, 945 S.W.2d 810, 811 (Tex.1997).
In disposing of all claims, however, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment clearly grants more relief than Guthmann requested. In relying strictly on the prohibition in section 207.007 of the Labor Code, Guthmann did not address Postive’s challenge to the constitutionality of that statute. The trial court erred, therefore, in dismissing the entire case. See Bandera Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Gilchrist, 946 S.W.2d 336, 337 (Tex.1997); Mafrige, 866 S.W.2d at 592.
When, as here, a trial court grants more relief by summary judgment than requested, by disposing of issues never presented to it, the interests of judicial economy demand that we reverse and remand as to those issues, but address the merits of the properly presented claims, Bandera, 946 S.W.2d at 337 (expressly approving procedure followed by the court of appeals on remand in Mafrige); see Ross v. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., 892 S.W.2d 119, 123 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist. 1994, no writ).
Accordingly, we address the claim that Guthmann relied on in seeking summary judgment. Because Guthmann’s motion for summary judgment did not address Postive’s challenge to the constitutionality of section 207.007, however, we may not address the portion of Postive’s third point of error in which it argues that the statutory bar does not protect Guthmann from torts “such as ‘abuse of process’ or ‘malicious prosecution.’ ” See Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c) (“Issues not expressly presented to the trial court by written motion, answer or other response cannot be considered on appeal as grounds for reversal.”); City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 676 (Tex.1979) (same); see also Summers v. Fort Crockett Hotel, Ltd., 902 S.W.2d 20, 27 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied) (rejecting point not presented to the trial court in opposition to motion for summary judgment). We will reverse and remand, therefore, for disposition of Postive’s unresolved ehal-[882]*882lenge to the constitutionality of section 207.007, under the Mafrige and Bandera mandates.4 Thus, we sustain Postive’s third point of error in part.
Tort Theory of Recovery
In its first and second points of error, Postive maintains the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for failure to state a cause of action, without affording Postive an opportunity to re-plead. Postive’s second point of error challenges the trial court’s “no evidence” resolution. In the portion of its third point of error not addressed above, Postive maintains the trial court impermissibly shifted the burden of proof. We address these issues together.
A summary judgment “should not be based on a pleading deficiency that could be cured by amendment.” In re B.I.V., 870 S.W.2d 12, 13-14 (Tex.1994) (per curiam). Summary judgment is not the proper vehicle to test the adequacy of the other party’s pleadings, which should be attacked by special exceptions. See Texas Dep’t of Corrections v. Herring, 513 S.W.2d 6, 10 (Tex.1974). A party who moves for summary judgment solely on the basis of the other party’s pleadings must accept all facts and inferences in the pleadings as true in the light most favorable to the opposing party, and any defects in the nonmovant’s pleadings must appear to be incurable by amendment. Trunkline LNG Co. v. Trane Thermal Co., 722 S.W.2d 722, 724 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). It is well settled, however, that a party may plead itself out of court by affirmatively negating its cause of action. E.g., Saenz v. Family Sec. Ins. Co. of Am., 786 S.W.2d 110, 111 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1990, no writ).
Guthmann moved for summary judgment based on Postive’s failure to bring forward any evidence of damages and its failure to state a claim on which the trial court could grant relief. As noted above, Postive’s pleadings reflect that it premised its claim for damages on the costs and attorney’s fees it was required to expend to set aside the award of unemployment benefits to Guthmann. Postive presented the affidavit of Robert Inglish, Postive’s Chairman of the Board, proving damages in the form of attorney’s fees and time employees had to take off work to prepare for and attend trial. Guthmann did not negate the existence of Postive’s tort cause of action. His motion for summary judgment merely concluded Postive did not present a claim on which the trial court could grant relief.
To uphold the trial court’s granting of Guthmann’s motion for summary judgment under these conditions would require us to hold that Texas does not recognize Pos-tive’s tort action. See, e.g., Hendricks v. Thornton, 973 S.W.2d 348, 371 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1998, pet. denied). While Guth-mann asserts that there is no cause of action for an employer to recover costs from an employee’s unemployment claim, he brings no authority or reasoning to support his position. Nevertheless, we think the legislative intent is clear, from the plain language of section 207.007 of the Labor Code,5 that Postive should not be allowed to circumvent the statute under some new tort theory “akin to malicious prosecution.”
Under these conditions, we hold that the trial court could have properly decided [883]*883Postive’s alleged tort action does not exist in Texas. Accordingly, we overrule Pos-tive’s first and second points of error and the portion of its third point of error not addressed in our first analysis.
Conclusion
We affirm the portion of the trial court’s judgment precluding Postive’s attempt to circumvent the Labor Code’s prohibition of costs being borne by employees and reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings concerning Postive’s claim for declaratory relief challenging the constitutionality of that statutory prohibition.