The Craddock Test for Motions for New Trial

The seminal case of Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1939), established a three-part test for setting aside default judgments:

1. The failure to respond was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference but was due to a mistake or accident.
2. The defendant has a meritorious defense to the plaintiff’s claim.
3. Granting the motion for a new trial will not cause undue delay or injury to the plaintiff.

Movants frequently rely on Craddock to argue for relief from summary judgment. However, the Texas Supreme Court clarified in Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp., 98 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. 2002), that the Craddock test does not apply when a nonmovant fails to respond to a motion for summary judgment but had ample opportunity to file a response or seek a continuance.

Application of the Carpenter Standard

In Carpenter, the court held that the Craddock test is inapplicable in summary judgment cases where the nonmovant fails to respond despite having notice of the motion and adequate time to act. Instead, courts examine whether procedural deficiencies occurred, such as failing to file a motion for continuance or seeking permission to submit a late response.

Common Defenses Raised in Motions for New Trial

1. Statute of Frauds

The Statute of Frauds requires certain agreements, including leases exceeding one year, to be in writing to be enforceable (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 26.01). A movant may claim that an oral lease is unenforceable under this statute. However, courts may reject such defenses if:

• The Statute of Frauds was not properly pleaded as an affirmative defense (Swinehart v. Stubbeman, McRae, Sealy, Laughlin & Browder, Inc., 48 S.W.3d 865, 875 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied)).
• The movant provides no evidence supporting the claim that the lease terms violated the statute.

2. Lack of Standing

Standing challenges often arise in cases involving corporate entities, with arguments focusing on corporate privileges or charter status. However, standing and capacity are distinct defenses, and raising the wrong one can be fatal to a motion. Courts have held that lack of capacity must be pleaded in trial court or it is waived (Transamerica Corp. v. Braes Woods Condo Ass’n, Inc., 580 S.W.3d 733, 737 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.)).

3. Discovery Abuses and Harm to Nonmovant

Courts also consider whether the movant’s actions caused harm to the opposing party. If the movant engaged in discovery abuse or other dilatory tactics, granting a new trial may result in undue hardship to the nonmovant. For example, repeated failures to cooperate with deposition requests or other discovery obligations can weigh heavily against granting relief.

Procedural and Strategic Considerations

When filing a motion for a new trial after summary judgment, movants should:

• Provide compelling evidence of a meritorious defense.
• Ensure all affirmative defenses were properly pleaded before the judgment.
• Demonstrate that granting the motion would not prejudice the nonmovant.

Conversely, nonmovants opposing such motions should emphasize procedural deficiencies, waived defenses, and any harm that might result from a new trial.

Conclusion

Motions for a new trial after summary judgment are not lightly granted, especially when the nonmovant had ample opportunity to respond. Courts will rigorously examine whether the movant has met the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in cases like Craddock and Carpenter. Understanding these standards is crucial for litigants navigating post-judgment motions in civil litigation.