In the case of Landreth v. Las Brisas Counsel of Co-Owners, Inc., 2009 WL 265273 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 5, 2009, no pet. h.), the court of appeals determined whether a trial court could review supplemental affidavits when deciding if a certificate of merit complies with Section 150.002 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The statute requires that a plaintiff file an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect practicing in the same area as defendant, setting forth specifically at least one negligent act, error or omission. In Landreth, the plaintiffs sued an architect and architectural firm for negligence and other causes of action when it claimed that the architectural firm did not perform as expected. The firm was hired to provide architectural services in conjunction with a renovation. When the plaintiffs filed suit, an affidavit of a registered architect was filed wherein the architect averred that he was a practicing architect and had performed architectural services on numerous buildings. The plaintiffs then filed several supplemental affidavits by the sponsoring architect but none of the affidavits ever stated that the architect was practicing in the same area as defendants at the time the initial affidavit was filed. Based on this defect, the defendants brought a motion to dismiss which the trial court granted.

      On appeal, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals reviewed the plain text of the statute to determine if the plaintiffs had met their burden of proof. The plaintiffs argued that the court should examine all of the affidavits on file to determine whether or not the requirements of the statute were met. The court of appeals disagreed and held that the plain language of the statute prohibited such an examination because nothing in the statute provided that additional or supplemental affidavits may be filed to comply with the statutory requirements. In making this decision, the court recognized that this is a relatively new statute and that there is no case law to interpret its language. Ultimately, the court held that the initial affidavit filed by the plaintiffs was not sufficient to comply with the statute because it did not state that the architect practiced in the same area as the defendants, i.e. design restoration work, and that the trial court did not have authority to examine the supplemental affidavits in determining whether the case should be dismissed.