In a surprising twist to a standard personal injury lawsuit, defendants served a crucial legal motion on an attorney who had been deceased for months, sparking significant judicial criticism and a subsequent reversal on appeal.

The legal saga began with a car accident involving plaintiffs and an 18-wheeler operated by Midstream Transportation Company. Unfortunately, a few months after the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Scott Ogle, passed away in December 2023. Aware of Ogle's death, the defendants requested a continuance, which was granted by the court. However, in a concurrent move, they also filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, listing 63 points of alleged lack of evidence by the plaintiffs.

Despite acknowledging Ogle's death in their motion — noting failed attempts to communicate with his office — the defendants proceeded to serve the motion and hearing notice to his now-unattended office. This action left the plaintiffs temporarily unrepresented and unaware of the proceedings.

Just two days before the scheduled hearing, a new attorney stepped in for the plaintiffs, requesting a continuance of the hearing to prepare adequately. The defendants opposed this motion, and the hearing proceeded, resulting in a summary judgment due to the plaintiffs’ inability to conduct discovery or adequately defend their position.

On appeal, the court was notably critical of the defendants' approach. Judge Katy Boatman, in her decision, emphasized that while the defendants might have a valid case for a no-evidence motion, they were not entitled to such a ruling when the notice was served inappropriately on a deceased attorney. The court highlighted the defendants' failure to directly contact the plaintiffs or seek court intervention to ensure proper legal proceedings.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the ethical obligations and decorum expected in legal practices, especially in adversarial situations. The appellate court’s decision underscores the importance of fairness and proper procedure, ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to participate in the legal process.

The case has been remanded for further proceedings, hopefully with adherence to higher ethical standards and legal propriety. The decision not only protects the integrity of the judicial process but also ensures that tragedy and loss within the legal community are handled with the respect and sensitivity they warrant.