Opinion
No. 09-07-109 CV
Submitted on May 21, 2007.
Opinion Delivered July 26, 2007.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Montgomery County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 06-04-03921-CV.
Before McKeithen, C.J., GAULTNEY And HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Proceeding pro se, Lisa M. Adams appeals a summary judgment granted against her and in favor of appellee, LVNV Funding LLC ("LVNV"). We affirm.
Relying on Adams's deemed admissions, LVNV filed a motion for summary judgment. Adams, who was a pro se defendant, did not respond to the motion. After the trial court granted summary judgment to LVNV, Adams appealed. She raises a single appellate issue; she contends that summary judgment against her was improper because the limitations period for LVNV's cause of action had expired.
Adams, however, did not present this issue to the trial court in response to LVNV's motion for summary judgment. Thus, we cannot consider her limitations issue as grounds for reversing the summary judgment. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c) ("Issues not expressly presented to the trial court by written motion, answer or other response shall not be considered on appeal as grounds for reversal."); McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 343 (Tex. 1993) (citing City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex. 1979)). When a non-movant fails to respond to a summary judgment motion, "the non-movant is limited on appeal to arguing the legal sufficiency of the grounds presented by the movant." McConnell, 858 S.W.2d at 343 (citing Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d at 678).
While Adams raised the statute of limitations defense in her answer to LVNV's original petition, she still was required to present it in response to LVNV's motion for summary judgment; she could not rely on her pleadings to meet this requirement. See Wheeler v. Sec. State Bank, N.A., 159 S.W.3d 754, 756 n. 3 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.) (citing City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex. 1979).
Because Adams's issue does not attack the legal sufficiency of the grounds presented by LVNV, we overrule it and affirm the trial court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.