## Facts

- Central Freight Lines, Inc. (Central) sued J. Trevino, doing business as Academy Surplus No. 5 (Academy Surplus), alleging Trevino failed to pay for goods that were ordered and received.
- Before trial, Central served Trevino with 18 requests for admission under former Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169.
- The requests asked Trevino to admit, among other matters:
  - Trevino was the sole owner and operator of Academy Surplus.
  - On September 28, 1976, Trevino authorized Bill Brooks to make purchases from Central for Academy Surplus.
  - On that same date, Brooks ordered goods from Central.
  - Upon delivery, Brooks tendered a check to Central that was not paid due to insufficient funds.
- Trevino did not timely respond to the requests for admission.
- Just before trial began, Trevino moved for an extension of time to file answers, stating he had prepared handwritten answers and given them to his attorney, but counsel did not serve or file responses as required.
- Trevino also objected that he lacked personal knowledge to admit or deny requests directed to Brooks’s actions.
- The trial court denied the extension request, ruled the requests were deemed admitted, and entered judgment for Central after a bench trial.
- Trevino appealed, challenging the denial of additional time and the use of deemed admissions to support judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Trevino an extension of time to respond to Central’s requests for admission under former Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169.
2. Whether Trevino could avoid deemed admissions by arguing lack of personal knowledge about matters involving Bill Brooks when Trevino did not timely serve the sworn responses required by the rule.
3. Whether the deemed admissions, without additional proof, were sufficient to support the judgment for Central on its claim for unpaid goods.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Central.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit late responses to the requests for admission.
- Because Trevino failed to respond, the matters in the requests were deemed admitted and treated as conclusively established.
- Trevino’s asserted lack of personal knowledge did not prevent the deemed-admission effect where he failed to timely provide the rule-required sworn explanation.
- The deemed admissions supplied a sufficient basis for the trial court’s judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Under former Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169, a party served with requests for admission must timely serve a sworn response admitting, denying, or stating in detail why the party cannot truthfully admit or deny.
- If the responding party does not timely answer, the matters in the requests are deemed admitted by operation of the rule.
- Deemed admissions are conclusive against the responding party unless the trial court permits withdrawal or late filing.
- Whether to allow late responses or to grant relief from deemed admissions rests within the trial court’s discretion; appellate review asks whether there was an abuse of discretion.
- A party generally bears the consequences of counsel’s failure to timely respond to discovery.
- A claim of lack of personal knowledge does not prevent deemed admissions when the party failed to timely submit the detailed sworn statement required by the rule.
- Deemed admissions may establish the elements of a claim and can support judgment without additional evidence on the admitted matters.

## Conclusion

In Trevino v. Central Freight Lines, Inc., the court held that unanswered Rule 169 requests were deemed admitted and conclusive, and it affirmed the trial court’s refusal to allow late responses where Trevino blamed counsel and claimed limited knowledge about another person’s conduct; the admissions established the facts necessary to support judgment for Central.


Trevino v. Central Freight Lines, Inc., 613 S.W.2d 356 (1981)