Republic National Leasing Corp. v. Schindler
Tex.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund, LP and Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund II, LP v. Primexx Energy Corporation, M. Christopher Doyle, Angelo Acconcia, Blackstone Inc., Blackstone Holdings III LP, Blackstone EMA II LLC, BMA VII LLC, Blackstone Energy Management Associates II LLC, Blackstone Energy Partners II LP, Blackstone Management Associates VII LLC, Blackstone Capital Partners VII LP, BCP VII/BEP II Holdings Manager LLC, BX Primexx Topco LLC, and BPP Holdco LLC Tex. App.
- 2025WBL SPO I, LLC, WBL SPO II, LLC and Albert Adel Shehata v. United Hotels, LLC and Ghada Glaessner Tex. App.
- 2025Gulf & Western Industries, LLC, Carlos Eduardo Buchanan II, and Dale Edwin Toney v. New Century Financial, Inc. Tex. App.
- 2023U-Haul Co. of Texas v. Landon Darrell Mason and Ash Automated Control System, LLC Tex. App.
- 2023Kevin Frymier v. Taren Bellows, Old American County Mutual United Automobile Insurance Services and Allstate Insurance Co. Tex. App.
- 2022Dimension Homes, Inc. and Jeffrey Dziuk v. Douglas Duncan Lewis and Elizabeth Pamela Lewis Tex. App.
- 2022Northpointe LTC, LTD., Grace Care Center at Northpointe v. Debbie A. Durant Tex. App.
- 2021Knox Waste Service, LLC and Adolpho Martinez, Jr. v. Jason Sherman and Melissa Miles Sherman Tex. App.
- 2021the University of Texas at Dallas v. Richard J. Addante, Ph.D. Tex. App.
- 2019in Re: Michael Dwayne Williams Tex. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
REPUBLIC NATIONAL LEASING CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. Charles J. SCHINDLER, Respondent.
Attorneys
- Charles L. Perry, Johnson, Bromberg & Leeds, Dallas, for petitioners.
- Timothy P. Dowling, Gary, Thomasson, Hall & Marks, Corpus Christi, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment. Republic sued Schindler for breach of an aircraft leasing agreement. Schindler answered with a general denial. Republic filed a motion for summary judgment. Schindler filed no response or con-traverting affidavits. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Republic. In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals reversed and remanded.
The only summary judgment evidence was the affidavit of John B. Mason, Republic’s Credit Manager. Attached and incorporated by reference were three documents: a copy of the lease agreement, a copy of the lease payment schedule, and a copy of the demand letter sent to Schindler by Republic detailing its damages.
Because Schindler failed to file any response, the only issue before this Court is whether Republic’s summary judgment evidence entitles it to judgment as a matter of law. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex.1979). The Court of Appeals held that the facts presented in Republic’s affidavit were not easily controverted; therefore, the affidavit was insufficient summary judgment evidence. A summary judgment may be based on the uncontroverted affidavit of an interested witness if the evidence is clear, positive, direct, otherwise credible, free from contradictions and inconsistencies, and could have been readily controverted. TEX.R.CIV.P. 166-A(c). The relevant portion of Republic’s affidavit states that Schindler failed to make certain payments on the lease and states the amount of damages claimed. The court of appeals held that because Schindler had not performed any discovery, these matters were not readily controverted. We hold that these are matters which are readily controvertible.
The court of appeals further concluded that the attachments to Republic’s affidavit were not summary judgment evidence because they were not separately sworn. Rule 166-A(e) states that copies of papers referred to in summary judgment affidavits must be sworn or certified. This Court has held that copies of documents which are attached to a properly prepared affidavit are sworn copies within the meaning of Rule 166-A(e). Zarges v. Bevan, 652 S.W.2d 368, 369 (Tex.1983); Life Insurance Company of Virginia v. Gar-Dal, Inc., 570 S.W.2d 378, 380 (Tex.1978). Republic’s affidavit stated that the attached documents were true and correct copies of the originals, and the affidavit was properly sworn. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in considering those documents as summary judgment evidence.
The judgment of the court of appeals is contrary to TEX.R.CIV.P. 166-A(e), Zarges v. Bevan, 652 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.1983) and Life Insurance Company of Virginia v. Gar-Dal, Inc., 570 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.1978). Pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 133(b), we grant the application for writ of error, and without hearing argument, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Schindler brings forward two cross points which were not preserved, therefore, we do not address them.