PER CURIAM.
In this case, we must decide whether mere statements of intent to discontinue a joint venture cause automatic dissolution of the venture as a matter of law. We hold that statements expressing an intent to dissolve a partnership at some future time do not necessarily constitute an immediate dissolution of the partnership as a matter of law, and that the court of appeals erred in affirming summary judgment on that basis. Accordingly, without hearing oral argument pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, we reverse the court of appeals' judgment and remand the case to that court. We also hold that the court of appeals did not err in determining that Buck waived any right he might have had to disqualify Palmer's attorney by failing to timely move to disqualify her.
Robert Buck, G.J. Palmer, John Thobe, and 1629 Service Corporation ("1629") created the Queen Isabella Development Joint Venture to build a marina and yacht club in Port Isabel, Texas. By the time relevant to this case, Buck and Palmer each had a twenty percent interest and 1629 had a sixty percent interest in the venture. The venture borrowed over $7 million, guaranteed by Buck and Palmer. When the venture failed after a series of major storms damaged the marina, waves of litigation ensued as creditors sought repayment. The litigation culminated in a settlement wherein the venture's outstanding debt was reduced to a $600,000 note and 1629's interest in the venture was transferred to Palmer, giving him an eighty percent interest. Since the settlement, the value of the property has risen to a recent estimated value of around $4 million.
The current dispute involves the remaining twenty percent interest in the venture. In 1997, Palmer sued Buck for breach of an oral agreement, alleging that Buck promised to transfer his remaining interest in the venture to Palmer in exchange for freedom from the venture's indebtedness following the earlier settlement. Buck denied the existence of this contract, sought a declaration that he was still the owner of an interest in the venture, and requested that the trial court determine the fair value of his interest. Palmer filed no-evidence and traditional summary judgment motions on the basis that, even absent the oral contract, Buck relinquished his interest when he allegedly expressed his will to dissolve the venture on various occasion between 1993 and 1995. The principal evidence of dissolution is a letter dated June 16, 1995, in which Buck wrote to Palmer, "I have no desire to embark into any QID land development scenario
The trial court denied Buck's motions and granted Palmer's summary judgment motions. Without reaching the limitations issue, the court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that Buck's communications to Palmer in 1995 are conclusive evidence of dissolution of the joint venture and warranted summary judgment on the basis that Buck lacks standing to assert any claims to the venture. 379 S.W.3d 309. We disagree.
We review a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex.2003). We must determine whether there is more than a scintilla of probative evidence raising genuine issues of material fact. See TEX.R. CIV. P. 166a(c), (i).
The applicable law in this case, the Texas Uniform Partnership Act,
Buck also contends that the court of appeals erred in holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant his motion to disqualify Palmer's counsel based on an alleged conflict of interest due to her association with a law firm that had previously represented Buck and Palmer. We disagree. The court of appeals held that Buck's unexplained seven-month delay in seeking the attorney's disqualification was sufficient to establish waiver. We have held that a delay of even less time waives a motion to disqualify. Vaughan v. Walther, 875 S.W.2d 690, 691 (Tex.1994).
Because Buck produced evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to his intent to dissolve the partnership, we hold that the court of appeals erred in affirming summary judgment on that basis. We also hold that the court of appeals did not err in upholding the trial court's denial of Buck's motion to disqualify Palmer's attorney. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals' judgment and remand this case to the court of appeals for consideration of the unaddressed summary judgment motion on statute of limitations grounds, as well as for reconsideration of Buck's motion to compel discovery.