In Texas civil litigation, a Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) serves as a procedural tool for disposing of a lawsuit before trial when there are no material facts in dispute. While many clients frequently ask their attorneys to file an MSJ to get a case quickly dismissed or resolved, winning a case on summary judgment is far more difficult than it appears on the surface.
Understanding the Legal Standard Under TRCP 166a(c)
Traditional motions for summary judgment in Texas are governed by Rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Under this rule, the party filing the motion (the movant) carries the heavy burden of proof.
To prevail, the movant must conclusively establish two key elements:
- No Genuine Issue of Material Fact: There are no critical facts left for a jury or judge to resolve.
- Entitlement to Judgment as a Matter of Law: Based strictly on the undisputed facts, the law mandates a decision in the movant's favor.
A primary example of a strong traditional summary judgment occurs when concrete, unrefuted documentary evidence directly defeats a claim—such as a defendant producing a signed bill of sale and a third-party affidavit in a motor vehicle dispute to conclusively prove they sold, rather than loaned, a vehicle prior to an accident. Faced with an unassailable summary judgment motion, an opposing party may choose to non-suit their claims rather than face formal dismissal by the court.
The Low Bar to Defeat a Traditional MSJ
While a traditional summary judgment seems ideal for straightforward claims such as a breach of contract or suit on a sworn account involving unpaid business invoices it is notoriously fragile.
To defeat a plaintiff's traditional summary judgment motion, a defendant does not need to prove they are right. They only need to create a single genuine issue of material fact.
For instance, if a business files an MSJ presenting clear invoices and an affidavit proving goods were delivered, the defendant can defeat the motion simply by filing a counter-affidavit asserting a factual conflict such as claiming the goods were defective or that incorrect items were delivered. Even if the defendant's claim lacks credibility or is factually inaccurate, signing a sworn affidavit alleging conflicting facts creates a fact issue that forces the judge to deny the summary judgment and send the case toward a full trial.
Strategic Risks and Hidden Costs of Filing an MSJ
Before spending significant capital on a summary judgment motion, litigants should evaluate the potential strategic drawbacks:
- Judicial Reluctance: Texas judges generally prefer cases to be decided on the merits at trial rather than resolved via summary judgment. If there is even a slight ambiguity in the evidence, judges will often deny the motion.
- Emboldening the Opposing Party: If an expensive summary judgment motion is denied, this often emboldens the opposing party, making them less willing to negotiate or settle for a reasonable amount.
- High Upfront Legal Expenses: Drafting a comprehensive MSJ with supporting affidavits and evidence requires substantial attorney time. If the motion fails due to a simple factual dispute, the client incurs significant expenses with little immediate progress toward a final resolution.
While traditional summary judgments remain an effective legal tool for the right set of facts, property and business owners should carefully consult with their legal counsel to ensure an MSJ aligns with their broader litigation strategy.
All information provided on Silblawfirm.com (hereinafter "website") is provided for informational purposes only, and is not intended to be used for legal advice. Users of this website should not take any actions or refrain from taking any actions based upon content or information on this website. Users of this site should contact a licensed Texas attorney for a full and complete review of their legal issues.