HOUSTON - The First Court of Appeals has determined that a trial court erred in granting summary judgment for The Gibson Law Firm in a legal malpractice lawsuit.
The lawsuit was brought by DePina, who owns land that has a railroad running alongside the property. He claims that the railroad company failed to maintain a culvert and provide adequate drainage, which sometimes caused flooding during rainstorms.
Court records show DePina sought the services of The Gibson Law Firm, which agreed to represent him in pursuing claims for property damage and flooding.
DePina ended up suing the law firm for malpractice, alleging that it failed to timely investigate and file his claims against the railroad company within the statute of limitations.
The law firm moved for summary judgment, arguing that DePina could not establish causation on his malpractice claim because his underlying flooding claims constituted a permanent nuisance, and the statute of limitations therefore expired at least one year before he ever contacted the firm.
The trial court granted the motion and the appeal ensued, with the First Court reversing the ruling on April 21, court records show.
“The parties do not dispute that whether limitations had run depends on whether the alleged flooding nuisance was permanent or temporary,” the opinion states. “This appeal thus turns on whether the record shows as a matter of law that the nuisance DePina asserted — flooding to his property that DePina says is caused by an unmaintained railroad culvert combined with certain very heavy rain — was permanent, as opposed to temporary (and thus whether limitations had run).
“Applying the Texas Supreme Court’s description of a temporary versus permanent nuisance to this summary judgment record, we conclude that the record does not show as a matter of law that the alleged nuisance was permanent, and therefore the law firm did not establish that the statute of limitations expired.”
Justices found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the law firm, reversing the trial court’s judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.
Appeals case No. 01-24-00316-CV
