The Texas Supreme Court has reversed a Texarkana Court of Appeals decision holding that a plaintiff waived claims stricken by the trial court because her amended pleading omitted them.
In the Estate of Billy Wayne Phillips, Deceased (No. 24-0366; November 1, 2024) from a dispute between daughters over their father’s estate. Decedent devised his estate to them, including a tract of land on which they both lived. The trial court admitted the will to probate and appointed Daughter 1 as independent executor. When she tried to sell the tract, Daughter 2 filed a petition in intervention to partition the property under various theories. After the trial court dismissed her claims under Chapter 23A, Property Code, under Rule 91a, Daughter 2 filed an amended petition that repleaded her partition claims and alleged additional facts. Daughter 1 then filed special exceptions to strike her petition claims, which the trial court granted. The court’s order further directed Daughter 2 to file another amended petition including only her other claims against Daughter 1 in her executor capacity. Daughter 2 complied. In the event, the trial court signed an order authorizing Daughter 1 to sell the property. Daughter 2 appealed, challenging the sale order and the order striking her claims. Over a dissent, the court of appeals affirmed. Daughter 2 sought SCOTX review.
In a per curiam opinion issued without oral argument, SCOTX reversed. In general, as the Court observed, “amended pleadings and their contents take the place of prior pleadings,” and “any claim not carried forward in an amended pleading is deemed dismissed” (citations omitted). Nevertheless, the Court has recognized an exception to the rule when a plaintiff “indicat[es] an intent not to abandon the claim” that the trial court has previously rejected. In this case, Daughter 2’s amended petition “expressly reserved the right to reassert ‘causes of action that a court of appeals may determine were wrongly dismissed by the trial court.’” The court of appeals erred when it “viewed [Daughter 2’s] adherence to the trial court’s order as a manifestation of intent to abandon the stricken claims.” Instead, Daughter 2 challenged the special exceptions to her partition claims and obtained adverse rulings ordering her to amend her pleadings to omit those claims. Her compliance with that order preserved them for appellate review. The court of appeals, consequently, should have addressed her complaint on the merits, and the Court remanded to the court for that purpose.
