matter set up defense in Texas

2025We review de novo a trial court’s 4 decision on a Rule 91a motion “because the availability of a remedy under the facts alleged is a question of law and the rule’s factual-plausibility standard is akin to a legal-sufficiency review.” Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d at 724 .

2023Appellate courts review the merits of a trial court’s Rule 91a ruling de novo “because the availability of a remedy under the facts alleged is a question of law and the rule’s factual-plausibility standard is akin to a legal-sufficiency review.” City of Dallas v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam); see also In re Farmers Tex. Cnty.

2026“Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). 5 Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 59 provides that “[n]otes, accounts, bonds, mortgages, records, and all other written instruments, constituting, in whole or in part, the claim sued on, or the matter set up in defense, may be made a part of the pleadings . . . and shall be deemed a part thereof for all purposes.” TEX.

2023To these we would add Medina, 627 S.W.3d at 631, which concluded the non-movant’s claims were not foreclosed where the exceptions relied on by the rule 91a movant were not established by the non-movant’s pleadings, and AC Interests, L.P. v. Texas Comm’n on Env’t Quality, 543 S.W.3d 703, 706 (Tex. 2018), which agreed that a rule 91a motion was not the proper motion to file when the defendant sought dismissal based on an alleged failure to satisfy a statutory deadline to serve process, a matter not evident from the plaintiff’s pleadings. 6 Rule 59 permits as “pleading exhibits” only “[n]otes, ac

2023To these we would add Medina, 627 S.W.3d at 631, which concluded the non-movant’s claims were not foreclosed where the exceptions relied on by the rule 91a movant were not established by the non-movant’s pleadings, and AC Interests, L.P. v. Texas Comm’n on Env’t Quality, 543 S.W.3d 703, 706 (Tex. 2018), which agreed that a rule 91a motion was not the proper motion to file when the defendant sought dismissal based on an alleged failure to satisfy a statutory deadline to serve process, a matter not evident from the plaintiff’s pleadings. 6 Rule 59 permits as “pleading exhibits” only “[n]otes, ac

2020Civ. P. 59 (“Notes, accounts, bonds, mortgages, records, and all other written instruments, constituting, in whole or in part, the claim sued on, or the matter set up in defense, may be made a part of the pleadings by copies thereof . . . being attached or filed and referred to as such . . . and shall be deemed a part thereof for all purposes.”); Cavin, 545 S.W.3d at 73 ; Fawcett v. Grosu, 498 S.W.3d 650, 660 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (concluding that plaintiff “was permitted to rely on his pleadings (including exhibits) in response to appellant’s motion” to dismiss t

2016R. 59 (“Notes, accounts, bonds, mortgages, records, and all other written instruments, constituting, in whole or in part, the claim sued on, or the matter set up in defense, may be made a part of the pleadings by copies thereof, or the originals, being attached or filed and referred to as such ... and shall be deemed a part thereof for all purposes.”); Wooley, 447 S.W.3d at 74 (“The trial court may not consider evidence in ruling on the motion and must decide the motion based solely on the pleading of the cause of action, together with any exhibits permitted by Rule 59.”).