Wheelis v. FIRST CITY, TEXAS-NORTHEAST

Court of Appeals of Texas

Wheelis v. FIRST CITY, TEXAS-NORTHEAST

853 S.W.2d 81, 1993 Tex. App. LEXIS 1187, 1993 WL 73466

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 29, 1993

DocketB14-92-00155-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 853 S.W.2d 81 (Wheelis v. FIRST CITY, TEXAS-NORTHEAST) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wheelis v. FIRST CITY, TEXAS-NORTHEAST, 853 S.W.2d 81, 1993 Tex. App. LEXIS 1187, 1993 WL 73466 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

SEARS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment. First City sued Ronald and Sally Wheelis, as guarantors, for a deficiency on two promissory notes. First City served the Wheelises with requests for admissions and interrogatories, and the Appellants failed to respond. On November 17, 1991, First City moved for summary judgment. On December 5, 1991, Appellants filed and served their Motion to Set Aside Deemed [82]*82Admissions, their late responses to the requests for admissions, responses to interrogatories, and their response to the summary judgment. A hearing was held on December 13, 1991, in which the Court heard and denied the motion to set aside the deemed admissions and denied the request for extension of time to answer the interrogatories. The Court granted summary judgment for First City.

In one point of error, Appellant complains that the trial court erred in failing to set aside the deemed admissions, and in not granting leave to file late answers to the requests for admissions and the interrogatories. We affirm.

The standard for reviewing a trial court’s discovery rulings is abuse of discretion. Crime Control, Inc. v. RMH-Oxford Joint Venture, 712 S.W.2d 550, 552 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241 (Tex.1985) cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2279, 90 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986). The burden is on the Appellants to present a record sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Tex.R.App.P. 50(d); National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Wyar, 821 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ).

Appellants have not filed in this Court the record of the December 13, 1991 hearing on the motion to withdraw the deemed admissions and the interrogatories. Without a statement of facts from that hearing, this Court cannot determine if the trial court abused its discretion. Wyar at 296. We overrule Appellants’ sole point of error.

The judgment is affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Motion for rehearing denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

SEARS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment. First City sued Ronald and Sally Wheelis, as guarantors, for a deficiency on two promissory notes. First City served the Wheelises with requests for admissions and interrogatories, and the Appellants failed to respond. On November 17, 1991, First City moved for summary judgment. On December 5, 1991, Appellants filed and served their Motion to Set Aside Deemed [82]*82Admissions, their late responses to the requests for admissions, responses to interrogatories, and their response to the summary judgment. A hearing was held on December 13, 1991, in which the Court heard and denied the motion to set aside the deemed admissions and denied the request for extension of time to answer the interrogatories. The Court granted summary judgment for First City.

In one point of error, Appellant complains that the trial court erred in failing to set aside the deemed admissions, and in not granting leave to file late answers to the requests for admissions and the interrogatories. We affirm.

The standard for reviewing a trial court’s discovery rulings is abuse of discretion. Crime Control, Inc. v. RMH-Oxford Joint Venture, 712 S.W.2d 550, 552 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241 (Tex.1985) cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2279, 90 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986). The burden is on the Appellants to present a record sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Tex.R.App.P. 50(d); National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Wyar, 821 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ).

Appellants have not filed in this Court the record of the December 13, 1991 hearing on the motion to withdraw the deemed admissions and the interrogatories. Without a statement of facts from that hearing, this Court cannot determine if the trial court abused its discretion. Wyar at 296. We overrule Appellants’ sole point of error.

The judgment is affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Motion for rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

853 S.W.2d 81, 1993 Tex. App. LEXIS 1187, 1993 WL 73466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheelis-v-first-city-texas-northeast-texapp-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack