Even a slight excuse will suffice, especially where delay or prejudice will not result against the opposing party. Webb v. Ray, 944 S.W.2d 458, 460 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th] 1997, no writ). The actions of the parties and counsel are significant when a court is reviewing the record to determine if good cause has been established.

Failure to respond in a timely manner to properly served requests for admissions results in the requests being deemed "admitted without the necessity of a court order" and conclusively establishes the matters that are deemed admitted. Tex. R. Civ. P. 198.2(c), 198.3 ; see alsoWal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Deggs , 968 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam) ; Webb v. Ray , 944 S.W.2d 458, 460–61 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ) ; cf.Chavez v. Chavez , No. 01-13-00727-CV, 2014 WL 5343231, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 21, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (discussed below). As part of her deemed admissions, Kholaif admitted that she and the decedent signed the premarital agreement, it was properly translated and notarized, she intended to be bound by it, she waived her homestead rights and rights to a family allowance, and there was no exempt property.

To prevail, they must prove they did not intentionally or consciously disregard their obligation to timely answer." Webb v. Ray , 944 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ). "Good cause is established by showing that the failure involved was an accident or mistake, not intentional or the result of conscious indifference." Marino , 355 S.W.3d at 633 ; Wheeler v. Green , 157 S.W.3d 439, 442 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam). "

The party seeking withdrawal of the deemed admissions has the burden to establish good cause. Boulet, 189 S.W.3d at 836 (citing Webb v. Ray, 944 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ)). "A different standard applies when the deemed admissions are merit-preclusive."

We conclude that the trial court could have reasonably concluded that Carter failed to establish good cause for his failure to timely respond to Perry's request for admissions and, therefore, did not abuse its discretion. See Todd v. Heinrich, No. 01-10-00267-CV, 2011 WL 2183881, at *8-10 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 2, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); Webb v. Ray, 944 S.W.2d 458, 461-62 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ); Ramsey v. Criswell, 850 S.W.2d 258, 259-60 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1993, no writ); Hoffman v. Tex. Commerce Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 846 S.W.2d 336, 339-40 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (op. on reh'g). We overrule this portion of issue one.

The party seeking withdrawal of the deemed admissions has the burden to establish good cause. Boulet, 189 S.W.3d at 836 (citing Webb v. Ray, 944 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ)). Here, the record demonstrates that Colony Builders served George with requests for admissions on March 5, 2012.

The party seeking withdrawal of the deemed admissions has the burden to establish good cause. Boulet, 189 S.W.3d at 836 (citing Webb v. Ray, 944 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ)). "Undue prejudice depends on whether withdrawing an admission or filing a late response will delay trial or significantly hamper the opposing party's ability to prepare for it." Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 443.

The party seeking withdrawal of deemed admissions has the burden to establish good cause. Id. (citing Webb v. Ray, 944 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, no writ)). "Undue prejudice depends on whether withdrawing an admission or filing a late response will delay trial or significantly hamper the opposing party's ability to prepare for it." Id. at 836-37 (citing Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 443).

The admissions had already been deemed and set aside once, and Appellants delayed in filing the October 6, 2008 motion to set aside the deemed admissions until after the trial court had denied the September 19, 2008 motion to declare their responses to Brunig's requests for admissions timely served, which Appellants filed just over two weeks before the date the case was set for trial and which was based on an argument that the trial court had previously addressed and denied several times, as explained above. See Webb v. Ray, 944 S.W.2d 458, 461-62 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th] 1997, no writ) (reasoning that counsel's actions show a consistent pattern of neglect and indifference). Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the trial court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably or without reference to guiding rules and principles by concluding that Appellants failed to demonstrate good cause for the withdrawal of the deemed admissions.

The party seeking withdrawal of deemed admissions has the burden to establish good cause. Webb v. Ray, 944 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ). "Undue prejudice depends on whether withdrawing an admission or filing a late response will delay trial or significantly hamper the opposing party's ability to prepare for it." Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 443.