Sharon Ann Gribble, Individually and in Her Capacity as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Michael Ray Gribble v. Brent Allen Layton (2012)

Kerns then filed a motion for leave to supplement his complaint, arguing his malicious prosecution claim “became ripe on February 21, 2025” and the “magistrate’s recommendation overlooked this critical fact” when it concluded that further leave to amend would be futile. _____________________ 31 See Gribble v. Layton, 389 S.W.3d 882, 894 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied); Rollins, 628 S.W.3d at 597. 12 Case: 25-40349 Document: 44-1 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/12/…

Id.; Gribble v. Layton, 389 S.W.3d 882, 894 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied).

Id.; Gribble v. Layton, 389 S.W.3d 882, 894 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied).

“The purpose of section 16.001(a)(2) is to protect a person of unsound mind by ensuring 2 that a legally disabled person’s right to bring suit will not be precluded by a statute of limitations, prior to removal of the disability.” Gribble v. Layton, 389 S.W.3d 882, 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (citing Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tex. 1993)).

At a minimum, Plaintiff must produce “(1) specific evidence that would enable the court to find that the incompetent person did not have the mental capacity to pursue litigation, or (2) a fact-based expert opinion to that effect.” Gribble v. Layton, 389 S.W.3d 882, 894 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied); Rollins v. S. Baptist Convention, 628 S.W.3d 583 , 590 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, pet. denied).

Gribble v. Layton, 389 S.W.3d 882, 886 (Tex. 2012).

“The purpose of section 16.001(a)(2) is to protect a person of unsound mind by ensuring that a legally disabled person’s right to bring suit will not be precluded by a statute of limitations, prior to removal of the disability.” Gribble v. Layton, 389 S.W.3d 882, 893 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, review denied) (citing Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tex.1993); Doe v. Catholic Diocese of El Paso, 362 S.W.3d 707, 722 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2011, no pet.)).

See Gribble v. Layton, 389 S.W.3d 882, 890-96 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (utilizing Robinson analysis but still conducting vested rights analysis as part of second prong of three-part test).

Compare Gribble v. Layton, 389 S.W.3d 882, 890 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (holding that family code section 160.606 furthers public policy of ensuring that child’s parents, rather than taxpayers, support the child), with Tex. Fam.