Admissions are powerful evidence. Properly used, they not only conclusively establish the admitted fact, but they also serve to bar any evidence to the contrary. The bar may be short-lived, however, if vigilance is not exercised to prevent inadvertent waiver.
Rule 198 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure addresses two types of admissions: (1) admissions and (2) deemed admissions. Of course, admissions respond to a request for admission by admitting the facts sought. Deemed admissions occur when no response, or a late response, is made. Deemed admissions are considered admissions without the necessity of a court order.
Both admissions and deemed admissions will retain their status as admissions until they have been withdrawn or amended by court order. Hence, untimely denials, even if only a day or two late, are ineffective to negate deemed admissions. Deemed admissions remain admissions until and through the date of trial, unless their withdrawal is sought and obtained by the trial court.
Most often admissions are read into evidence at trial. However, this is not necessary if they have been filed with the court. Admissions which are on file are effective without being introduced into evidence and will support a finding of that fact on final judgment. Welch v. Gammage, 545 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. App. — Austin 1977) (“[Although] the better practice is to introduce the requests for admissions and the responses into evidence… [nevertheless, they] may be considered as a part of the record if they were filed with the clerk of the court at trial time.”)
Whether admissions are read into evidence or simply filed with the papers of the court, no evidence which contradicts the admission may be introduced at trial over an objection. In other words, the court should sustain any objection made to evidence which attempts to controvert the admitted fact. The key, of course, is in lodging a timely objection. Marshall v. Vise, 767 S.W.2d 699, 699 (Tex. 1989) (“a party waives the right to rely upon an opponent’s deemed admissions unless objection is made to introduction of evidence contrary to those admissions”).
Absent timely objection, however, evidence which controverts the admission may be properly received into evidence. And once this happens, the admission is automatically downgraded from its status as a conclusively-proven fact and is relegated to mere evidence to be considered by the trier of fact. Should this occur during a jury trial, then it becomes important that the admissions actually be formally received into evidence as well (as opposed to being on file with the clerk of the court). Although there appears to be no case law on point, it is logical to assume that admissions which are of mere evidentiary value, i.e., admissions which simply furnish evidence on a fact in dispute, must be heard by a jury (as with any other piece of evidence), or they would not support a jury’s finding of fact consistent with them.
The treatment of admissions at the summary judgment stage, however, differs dramatically from that at trial on the merits. Notwithstanding whether an objection is lodged, it seems well-established in case law that for purposes of summary judgment, the trial court cannot consider evidence which contradicts admissions. Controverting evidence of this type will not create a fact issue to preclude summary judgment. Instead, any evidence which controverts an admission is simply barred. Beasley v. Burns, 7 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1999).
Beware, however, the Texas Supreme Court case which reversed a summary judgment based entirely upon deemed admissions. Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 443 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam). In Wheeler, the Supreme Court held that basing a summary judgment on deemed admissions alone was tantamount to a “merits-preclusive sanction” violative of due process. (“When a party uses deemed admissions to try to preclude presentation of the merits of a case, the same due process concerns [addressed in TransAmerican Natural Gas. Corp.] arise.”)
While Rule 198 places no limits on a party seeking any number of admissions of fact, opinion or application of law to facts, which, when combined, may serve to admit away an entire cause of action or defense, Wheeler cautions that admissions were “never intended to be used as a demand upon a (party) to admit that he had no cause of action or ground of defense.” In light of this holding, one might expect that summary judgment motions based solely upon deemed admissions would be frowned upon by both trial courts and appellate courts upon review.
There are three other points which merit brief mention. First, while admissions may be used by all parties in a case, they may only be used against the party who answered (or failed to answer). This is true even in multi-party cases involving related persons and entities — an admission by one party cannot be used against another party, no matter how similar their interests. Second, admissions may only be used in the case in which they were made. And, finally, denials to requests for admissions are not admissible (although erroneous admission into evidence has been held to be harmless error).
— Judge Bonnie Sudderth, 352nd District Court of Tarrant County, Texas
Update October 27, 2011: See the recent Texas Supreme Court case reaffirming the holding in Wheeler regarding the use of admissions as a “merits preclusive sanction.” http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2011/oct/100854.pdf