Background
Candace and John Green bought a recreational vehicle from Ron Hoover Marine, Inc. and Ron Hoover Companies of Houston, Inc. They alleged that Ron Hoover represented that the RV’s shower door and windows would be replaced and that it contained a brand-new refrigerator. After taking possession, the Greens claimed that the shower door remained defective, the windows had not been repaired or replaced, and the refrigerator was a residential unit improperly installed in the RV.
The Greens sued for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The trial court initially granted Ron Hoover’s traditional and no-evidence summary-judgment motion but granted an agreed new trial because the Greens had received only 17 days’ notice rather than the required 21 days. After approximately three months’ notice of a new hearing, counsel agreed in open court to reset submission for another month. The Greens filed neither a response nor a continuance motion, and the trial court again granted summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals held that the Greens received constitutionally sufficient actual notice of the summary-judgment submission date. Counsel appeared at the hearing and agreed in open court to the July 9, 2025 submission date, which the trial court set to provide the Greens additional response time. That actual notice satisfied due process despite the alleged absence of separate formal written notice.
The court also held that the Greens’ failure to respond made Ron Hoover’s no-evidence grounds dispositive. Although a nonmovant generally has no burden to respond to a traditional summary-judgment motion, a properly filed no-evidence motion shifts the burden to the nonmovant to produce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on the challenged elements. Because the Greens submitted no response identifying such evidence, the trial court properly granted no-evidence summary judgment. The appellate court therefore affirmed without addressing Ron Hoover’s traditional grounds.
Key Takeaways
- Actual notice of a summary-judgment hearing or submission date can satisfy due process even when formal written notice is allegedly deficient or absent.
- An agreed submission date announced in open court and entered into the record provides enforceable notice to the parties.
- A party opposing a no-evidence summary-judgment motion must timely respond with evidence raising a genuine fact issue on the challenged elements; relying silently on material already in the record is insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the procedural consequences of failing to respond to a no-evidence summary-judgment motion. Once the motion identifies challenged elements, the nonmovant must direct the trial court to evidence creating a genuine fact issue or risk judgment regardless of the underlying allegations.
It also confirms that Texas courts focus on whether a party actually received adequate notice and an opportunity to respond, not solely on whether the party received a separate written notice after counsel agreed to the setting in open court.