law-relation-back-doctrine

law-relation-back-doctrine | statute of limitations defense | amended pleadings

RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE

The relation-back doctrine provides that an amended pleading relates back to the filing of the original pleading.
See Bailey v. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. at San Antonio, 261 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2008),
aff'd, 332 S.W.3d 395 (Tex. 2011); see also In re Estate of Henry, 250 S.W.3d 518, 527 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no
pet.) (finding no abuse of discretion by trial court awarding attorney's fees based on amended pleading filed ten
days before trial); Zapalac v. Cain, 39 S.W.3d 414, 418 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (applying
relation back doctrine to reject contention that attorney's fees could be awarded only from date of amended
pleading).
Accordingly, [party's] amended pleading specifically requesting attorney's fees under section 16.034 would relate
back to the date his original petition was filed. In addition, "if a party pleads facts which, if true, entitle him to the
relief sought, he need not specifically plead the applicable statute in order to recover under it." Mitchell v.
LaFlamme, 60 S.W.3d 123, 130 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Even if a party pleads an incorrect
or inapplicable theory or statute in support of an attorney's fee award, the award is not precluded. Id.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.068 provides that "[i]f a filed pleading relates to a cause of
action . . . that is not subject to a plea of limitation when the pleading is filed, a subsequent amendment or
supplement to the pleading that changes the facts or grounds of liability or defense is not subject to a plea of
limitation unless the amendment or supplement is wholly based on a new, distinct, or different transaction or
occurrence." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.068 (Vernon 2008).

A two-pronged test determines whether an amended pleading relates back to an earlier pleading. Cooke v. Maxam
Tool & Supply, Inc., 854 S.W.2d 136, 141 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied). First, the original
cause of action asserted in the first pleading must not have been time-barred when filed. Id. Second, the amended
pleading that changes the facts or grounds of liability or defense must not be wholly based on a new, distinct or
different transaction or occurrence. Id. "Therefore, before a party can make use of § 16.068, the pleading that it
wants to relate back to must not be subject to a plea of limitations." Id.

In re Greater Houston Orthopaedic Specialists, Inc., 295 S.W.3d 323, 325 & n. 1 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam); see also
Stokes v. Beaumont, Sour Lake & W. Ry. Co., 161 Tex. 240, 339 S.W.2d 877, 877 (1960) (indicating that the
relation-back doctrine as applied to new parties is governed by the common law rather than by statute). The
federal rule is similar. See FED.R.CIV.P. 15(c)(1) ("An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the
original pleading when: . . . (C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of a party against whom a claim is
asserted, if [the amendment asserts a claim or defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence
set out—or attempted to be set out— in the original pleading] and if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for
serving the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment: (i) received such notice of the
action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and (ii) knew or should have known that the action
would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.").

C LAIMS AND DEFENSES IN TEXAS COURTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE