Young v. Kirsch
814 S.W.2d 77 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's failure to answer a lawsuit is the result of conscious indifference, not excusable mistake, when the defendant has prior litigation experience, receives multiple reminders from opposing counsel, and fails to act for a prolonged period. When ruling on a motion to set aside a default judgment, a trial court may consider all evidence, including depositions and live testimony, not just affidavits, to determine if the defendant's conduct constitutes conscious indifference.
Facts:
- On November 20, 1987, a vehicle driven by James B. Young struck a vehicle driven by Raymond R. Kirsch in San Antonio, Texas.
- Young's insurance carrier paid Kirsch's property damage claim, and the file was closed.
- Approximately two years later, Kirsch sued Young for personal injury damages.
- On January 24, 1990, Young was served with the lawsuit papers in Boca Raton, Florida.
- Upon his agent's instruction, Young forwarded the suit papers to his insurance carrier's office in Houston via regular mail.
- Over the next several months, Kirsch's counsel phoned Young on at least four occasions, notifying him that no answer had been filed in the lawsuit.
- Young had previously been employed as a stockbroker and manager for twenty years, during which time he had been sued on several occasions.
- Despite the phone calls and his prior experience, Young took no further action regarding the lawsuit between April 17, 1990, and May 23, 1990.
Procedural Posture:
- Raymond R. Kirsch sued James B. Young in a Texas trial court for personal injury damages.
- Young failed to file an answer to the lawsuit.
- The trial court entered a default judgment against Young for $350,000 on May 23, 1990.
- Young filed a motion for a new trial, arguing his failure to answer was not due to conscious indifference.
- The trial court held a hearing, where depositions and live testimony were presented, and subsequently denied Young's motion for a new trial.
- Young, as appellant, appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to the Court of Appeals, Fourth District of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant demonstrate conscious indifference, rather than excusable mistake or accident, when they fail to file a timely answer after being served, having prior litigation experience, and receiving multiple reminder phone calls from opposing counsel, thus justifying the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Chapa, Justice
Yes, a defendant's failure to answer demonstrates conscious indifference under these circumstances. The court found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. The court's reasoning rested on the application of the 'Craddock' test, which requires a defendant to show their failure to answer was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference. Here, Young's inaction for four months, combined with his prior familiarity with the legal system and the multiple reminder calls from Kirsch's counsel, amounted to more than mere negligence. The court defined conscious indifference as 'the failure to take some action which would seem indicated to a person of reasonable sensibilities under the same or similar circumstances.' The court also clarified a significant procedural point, holding that in evaluating conscious indifference, a trial court is not limited to considering only affidavits but may review all evidence presented at the hearing, including depositions and live testimony. This disapproves prior case law suggesting otherwise.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'conscious indifference' prong of the Craddock test for setting aside default judgments in Texas. The decision emphasizes that a defendant's prolonged and knowledgeable inaction, especially after being reminded of their obligations, will not be excused as a simple mistake. Critically, the court broadens the scope of evidence trial courts can consider in these hearings, moving beyond a battle of affidavits to include live testimony and depositions. This makes it more difficult for a defendant to overturn a default judgment with a self-serving affidavit and gives trial courts greater discretion to assess the credibility and reasonableness of a defendant's excuses based on a more complete evidentiary record.
Unlock the full brief for Young v. Kirsch