Armando solano el paso

Armando Solano of El Paso was hired five years ago to work at a high-tech company with offices in China. We were not the only family that got separated. Rosa and the two children decided to leave China before the United States closed its borders. They feared that in case of a medical emergency, they would not receive the proper medical attention in China since they were foreigners. They returned to El Paso and Armando stayed in China. They thought the family would reunite in China once that country got the virus under control.

Thank God, after more than a year, no one has been infected with the virus. As the months went by, the Solanos had to make decisions because of the separation.

One was to buy a home in El Paso to provide a proper space and housing for their children. So, in addition to the challenge of having to take virtual classes, Diego and Camila take classes from their school in China with an evening schedule. We are immensely proud. After more than a year of being separated and with the pandemic still present, the family faces uncertainty on when they can reunite. Photo courtesy of the Solano family. Do not edit the piece. In Point of Error One, Solano contends that the petition did not properly allege a sworn account because it did not contain a systematic, itemized statement of goods or services sold to him, did not indicate his relationship with Matthew, and did not detail why he was liable for Matthew s debt.

He also complains that the petition did not state that the charges were in accordance with an agreement between him and Matthew or that the charges were usual, customary, and reasonable for the services rendered. Finally, Solano argues that he and his wife were not sworn as witnesses, did not discuss the reason for the debt, and did not admit owing the debt.

In Point of Error Two, Solano claims that if the petition did not properly allege a sworn account, then it cannot be considered prima facie evidence.

In Points of Error Four and Six, he posits that if the petition is not prima facie evidence of a sworn account, then there is insufficient evidence to support the judgment.

The elements necessary to prove a suit on a sworn account are: 1 a sale and delivery of goods or services; 2 the charges on account are just, i. The cause of action must be supported by the affidavit of the party, his agent or attorney taken before some officer authorized to administer oaths, to the effect that such claim is, within the knowledge of affiant, just and true, that it is due, and that all just and lawful offsets, payments and credits have been allowed.

Orta s affidavit contained all of these necessary components and was attached to the petition. A party resisting a sworn claim must comply with the rules of pleading and timely file a verified denial or he will not be permitted to deny the claim. Solano did not file a sworn denial. If the pleading requirements are met and the opposing party fails to file a verified denial, then the petition and affidavit constitute prima facie evidence of the sworn account.

The failure to follow Rule precludes the defendant from raising a fact issue and from disputing the receipt of the items or services rendered or the correctness of the claim. Airborne Freight Corp. CRB Marketing, Inc. The defendant may not deny the claim or raise an issue that he did not owe the account or that it was wrongfully charged to him. Wilson v. Browning Arms Co. Bank of San Angelo v. Sheffield, S. Because SOS properly pled a suit on sworn account and Solano failed to file a verified denial, we conclude that the petition and affidavit constitute prima facie evidence of the claim.

In Point of Error Five, Solano challenges the trial court s finding that he admitted the medical services were provided to his son. He claims that he never admitted the debt and since neither he nor his wife were sworn as witnesses, Josefina s admission could not be used against him. A defendant s failure to file an answer that conforms with Rule amounts to an admission that the account is correct.

See Brown v. Clark, S. We overrule Point of Error Five. In Point of Error Three, Solano complains that even if the petition is prima facie evidence of the sworn account, it was not offered into evidence and will not support the judgment. We disagree. In the absence of a verified denial challenging the account, admission of the pleading was unnecessary.

See Airborne Freight Corp. Point of Error Three is overruled. In Point of Error Seven, Solano asserts that the judgment does not conform to the pleadings. Point of Error Seven is overruled. Finally, in Point of Error Eight, Solano complains that attorney s fees cannot be awarded if the underlying case is not proven. A party may recover reasonable attorney s fees if it prevails and recovers damages on a cause of action for which attorney s fees are recoverable.

See Tex.