In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-04-367 CV
____________________
BUDDY DAVIS AND JANIE DAVIS, Appellants
V.
MCT CREDIT UNION, AMANDA LEBLANC,
AND ELIZABETH HOLMES, Appellees
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. B-171,774
This cause arises out of a loan transaction between MCT Credit Union ("MCT") and Jeff Davis, deceased. Buddy and Janie Davis, Jeff's parents, brought a wrongful death action against MCT, Elizabeth Holmes, and Amanda LeBlanc, alleging that they were negligent in processing a loan for Jeff that allowed him to purchase property whose use resulted in his death. Appellees filed two motions for summary judgment. In the first, all three appellees alleged that a lender has no duty to refrain from lending in the circumstances found here. In the second motion, Holmes and LeBlanc, MCT employees, maintained they were not personally liable for actions taken during the course and scope of their employment. The trial court granted summary judgment on both motions without specifying the bases for its decisions. Bringing one issue, the Davises appeal. We affirm.
MCT loaned Jeff Davis money for the purchase of a motorcycle. Elizabeth Holmes and Amanda LeBlanc, as MCT's employees, assisted Jeff in securing the loan. The loan agreement required Jeff Davis to obtain collision insurance for the motorcycle. Even though he did not purchase collision coverage, Jeff received the loan and purchased the motorcycle. Tragically, Jeff later died as a result of injuries he received in a one-vehicle motorcycle accident. The Davises maintain appellees are responsible for Jeff's accident because they processed the loan without requiring proof of Jeff's obtaining collision insurance. (2)
In their sole appellate issue, the Davises contend the trial court committed "gross error" in granting the appellees' motions for summary judgment. The Davises argue that appellees' motions for summary judgment take "a very narrow view of the law and all of the facts" and urge us to "adopt a much wider perspective. . . ." However, the Davises cite no authority supporting this argument.
When, as here, the trial court does not state the grounds upon which it granted summary judgment, the appealing party must show that each independent ground alleged by the movant is insufficient to support the summary judgment granted. See Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1995); see also Caldwell v. Curioni, 125 S.W.3d 784, 789 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2004, pet. denied). Here, the appellants fail to cite any cases showing that a lender has a duty not to loan money to a borrower who acquires property on which he is subsequently injured. In fact, appellants fail to address the "no duty" contention asserted by all three appellants at all. In addition, while the Davises assert there are genuine issues of disputed material fact, they fail to identify them. Thus, the Davises have failed to carry their burden on appeal. See Doe, 915 S.W.2d at 473.
We overrule the Davises' appellate issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.
___________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on April 7, 2005
Opinion Delivered April 21, 2005
Before Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2. Appellants do not allege that Jeff, a BASF employee, was a minor or otherwise
legally unable to contract.