We express no opinion as to whether and how preservation is required where the record establishes the trial court considered evidence in contravention of Rule 91a.6. Compare Sw. Airlines Pilots Ass'n v. Boeing Co., No. 05-21-00598-CV, 2022 WL 16735379, at *7 (Tex. App.-Dallas Nov. 7, 2022, pet. filed) (implicitly acknowledging preservation requirement under Rule 91a.6 by concluding party preserved error by reciting standard of review in response to motion), with Davis v. Homeowners of Am. Ins. Co., No. 05-21-00092-CV, 2023 WL 3735115, at *5 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 31, 2023, no pet.) (implicitly rejecting preservation requirement under Rule 91a.6), and id. at *8 (Pedersen, J., dissenting) (dissenting on basis of failure to preserve under Rule 91a.6).
We agree that Rule 91a "is not a substitute for special exception practice under [R]ule 91 or summary judgment practice under [R]ule 166a, both of which come with protective features against precipitate summary dispositions on the merits." Davis v. Homeowners of Am. Ins. Co., No. 05-21-00092-CV, 2023 WL 3735115, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 31, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Id. Rule 91a provides a harsh remedy and should be strictly construed. Long v. Long, 681 S.W.3d 805, 816 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2023, no pet.); Davis v. Homeowners of Am. Ins. Co., No. 05-21-00092-CV, 2023 WL 3735115, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 31, 2023, no pet.); Renate Nixdorf GmbH & Co. KG v. TRA Midland Props., LLC, No. 05-17-00577-CV, 2019 WL 92038, at *10 (Tex. App.- Dallas Jan. 3, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re RNDC Tex., LLC, No. 05-18-00555-CV, 2018 WL 2773262, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas June 11, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Rule 91a is not a substitute for special exception practice under rule 91 or summary judgment practice under rule 166a, both of which come with protective features against precipitate summary dispositions on the merits.
(emphasis added)); see Davis v. Homeowners of Am. Ins. Co., No. 05-21-00092-CV, 2023 WL 3735115, at *4 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 31, 2023, no pet.) (holding that "there is nothing before us to suggest that the causes of action pleaded have no basis in law because they are not cognizable under Texas law," and "nothing within [plaintiff's] pleading itself triggers a clear legal bar to their claims").
Id. Rule 91a provides a harsh remedy and should be strictly construed. Long v. Long, 681 S.W.3d 805, 816 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2023, no pet.); Davis v. Homeowners of Am. Ins. Co., No. 05-21-00092-CV, 2023 WL 3735115, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 31, 2023, no pet.); Renate Nixdorf GmbH & Co. KG v. TRA Midland Props., LLC, No. 05-17-00577-CV, 2019 WL 92038, at *10 (Tex. App.- Dallas Jan. 3, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re RNDC Tex., LLC, No.
As stated above, the no-basis-in-fact prong of Rule 91a relates to the believability of the facts alleged. See Davis v. Homeowners of Am. Ins. Co., --- S.W.3d ---, No. 05-21-00092-CV, 2023 WL 3735115, at *2 (Tex. App.--Dallas May 31, 2023, no pet.). For the no-basis-in-law prong, Texas courts typically find that dismissal is appropriate in two circumstances: (1) where the plaintiff fails to plead a legally cognizable cause of action or (2) where the petition alleges facts that defeat the plaintiff's own claims.
As stated above, the no-basis-in-fact prong of Rule 91a relates to the believability of the facts alleged. See D a v i s v . Homeowners of Am. Ins. Co., --- S.W.3d ---, No. 05-21-00092-CV, 2023 WL 3735115, at *2 (Tex. App.--Dallas May 31, 2023, no pet.). For the no-basis-in-law prong, Texas courts typically find that dismissal is appropriate in two circumstances: (1) where the plaintiff fails to plead a legally cognizable cause of action or (2) where the petition alleges facts that defeat the plaintiff's own claims.
San Jacinto River Auth. v. Medina, 627 S.W.3d 618, 628 (Tex. 2021); In re Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 621 S.W.3d 261, 266 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); City of Dallas v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Rule 91a provides a harsh remedy and should be strictly construed. Davis v. Homeowners of Am. Ins. Co., No. 05-21-00092-CV, 2023 WL 3735115, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 31, 2023, no pet.); Renate Nixdorf GmbH & Co. KG v. TRA Midland Props., LLC, No. 05-17-00577-CV, 2019 WL 92038, at *10 (Tex. App.- Dallas Jan. 3, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re RNDC Tex., LLC, No. 05-18-00555-CV, 2018 WL 2773262, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas June
The petition attached as exhibits the 1930 Deed and the 1943 Deed. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.6 (referencing "pleading exhibits permitted by Rule 59"); Davis v. Homeowners of Am. Ins. Co., No. 05-21-00092-CV, 2023 WL 3735115, at *5 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 31, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Long v. Long, 681 S.W.3d 805, 816 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2023, no pet.); Davis v. Homeowners of Am. Ins. Co., No. 05-21-00092-CV, 2023 WL 3735115, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas May 31, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.); Royale v. Knightvest