Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
There is also a dissenting opinion in the case-
Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
In a nutshell, it appears as though the defendant had not exactly filed in a fashion expected of a litigant and then compounded the error by failing to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Summary judgment was granted to Unifund on a case that appears to have been beyond the SOL, a fact that appears in the dissenting opinion.
Justice Gray seems to suggest that he would have reversed on the SOL issue had the defendant bothered to respond to the MSJ but that the trial court was not required to decide on the issue due to the failure to respond to the MSJ.
[i]Unifund was, therefore, entitled to the summary judgment with one caveat; unless the statute of limitation defense was timely raised by Weaver. Weaver’s answers to the requests for admissions were ineffective as responses thereto, but they did raise the defense of limitations. But because Weaver did not file a response to the motion for summary judgment, it was not incumbent on Unifund to negate the defense of limitations raised by Weaver in his answers. McConnell v. Southside Independent School Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex. 1993) (“
ssues a non-movant contends avoid the movant’s entitlement to summary judgment must be expressly presented by written answer to the motion or by other written response to the motion and are not expressly presented by mere reference to summary judgment evidence”), citing City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex. 1979) (“the non-movant must expressly present to the trial court any reasons seeking to avoid movant’s entitlement ...”).
Weaver failed to properly raise the defense of limitations in response to the motion for summary judgment and, therefore, I dissent to the judgment reversing the trial court and remanding this proceeding to the trial court for further proceedings. 
