### NUM BER 13-09- 0003 5-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
PA UL PON TON A ND JOY CE M . PON TON , A pp ellan ts,
v. RIC HA RD M ILL ER A ND JA RVIS M ILL ER, A pp ellees .

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 15 6t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of L iv e Oa k C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s After a jur

y t r i al , th e j ur

y fou nd t ha t J oy c e M

. an d Pa ul P on to n, a pp el l an ts, trespa ssed o n land ow ned byRichard and Jarv is Mi ller, appe llees. T he jury awarded cost of r e s t o ra t i o n d a ma g e s t o t a l i n g $ 8 7 , 0 0 0

. O n O c t o b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e t r i a l c o u rtente re d jud g ment on the v erdict. T he Pontons appealed, asser ti ng that( 1) the tr ial co urt s ubmit ted an i mprop er measure of damag es; ( 2) the ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o suppo rtthe dam a g es aw ard; an d ( 3) the ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

i nsuffici ent t oB e c a u s e th is is a m e m o r a n d u m o p in io n a n d th e p a r tie s a r e f a m ilia r w ith th e f a c ts , w e w ill o n ly 1 d i s c u s s th e fa c ts i n s o fa r a s th e y re l a te to th e u l ti m a te d i s p o s i ti o n o f th i s a p p e a l

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. 2 s up po rt th e j ur

y ’ s fi nd i ng t ha t J oy c e Po nt on t r es pa s s ed o n th e M i l l ers ’ p rop er ty

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND 1 This ca se cal ls i nto q uest ion t h e a dag e tha t “ fences make g ood nei g hbors.” The Ponton s a nd th e M il lers o w n adj acentproper ty on t he s hores of Lake C or pus Chr is ti

. At one t ime, a drain ag e di tch di v ide d the tw o proper ti es. A fence ex is ts on th e M il lers’ si de of the di tch

. W hen the Ponton s pur chas ed thei r lot in Dec ember 2004, they bel iev ed th at this fence ma rked the bou nda ry line bet w een the tw o prop erties. Beca u s e t h e d it ch collecte d w ate r, fallen trees, deb ris and even dea d anim als, the Pon ton s f illed in the ditch using dirt prov ided bya road con struction comp any p e rf o rm in g w ork in nea rbyMathis, T exas. Subse quent to f illing in the ditch, th e Pon ton s learned thatthe fence did notmark the b oundar

y betw een t he proper

ti es; the Mi ll ers a ctu all y ow ned t he di tch

. Addi ti onal ly , i n an effort to mai ntai n the ir sh oreli ne, t he Pon tons hi re d a b ull doz er cont ra cto r to “ cl ean” the shoreli ne. The bul ldo z er operator cl eared g ra ss , br ush and ot her deb ris, inclu d in g s om e trees, of f of the sho reline on the Po nto n’s prope rty . How ever, acc ordin g to the M il lers, the b ull doz er operator al so re mov ed di rt

from t hei r por

ti on of the shoreli ne. The M il lers s ued t he Pon tons al leg ing thatthe Ponton s’ a ct io ns amounted to a trespas s o n the M il lers’ proper ty

. The Ponto n s f il ed a count er cl aim ass erti ng thatthey
ow ned the d it ch by

adv erse poss ess ion

. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 16.026 (V er non 200 2)

. The cas e w as tr ied to a jur y , w hic h c oncl uded t hat t he Pon tons trespas sed on th e M il lers’ l and. The tri al cour t s ubmit ted a j ur

y ch arg e tha t i ncl uded a q uest ion as ki ng the j ur y to cal cul ate d amag es based on t he c ostto re sto re the Mi lle rs’ proper ty to the3

co n d it io n i t w as in pr ior to the P ontons fil li ng i n the di tch and re mov ing di rtfrom t he shoreli ne. The ju ry

found thatthe cos t t o rest ore the d it ch i s $ 7 1,500 and t he c ostto restore th e sho reline is $15 ,50 0. T he trial court rend ered ju dgme nt on the verdict, an d this appeal ens ued. II. P ROP E R M EA SURE OF D A M A GES In th eir first issue, the Ponto ns argue tha t the trial court erred by subm itting a cost of restoratio n me asure of dam ages to the jury

instea d of

subm ittin g a d im inutio n in fair mark et v alu e meas ure of damag es. The P ontons as ser t t hat b ecaus e the cos t of
re sto ra ti on ex ceeds the dimi nuti on i n v alu e of the dit ch and t he sh o re lin e, t he proper me as ure of da ma g es i s th e di mi nu ti on i n v al ue of th os e s pe c i fi c pa rts of the Mil lers’ proper ty

. The M il lers c ontend that cos t of rest ora ti o n i s t he appropr iat e meas ure of dam ages beca use th e cost to restore is less than the dim inutio n in v alue of their ent ire p ro p e rt y. The proper

measu re of damag es is a q uest ion of law

. Allied Vista , Inc. v. Holt , 987 S

. W

. 2 d 1 3 8 , 1 4 1 (T e x. A p p . – Ho u s t o n [ 1 4 t h Di s t

. ] 1 9 9 9 , p e t

. d e n ie d ). W e re vie w d e n o vo the tr ial cour

t’ s deci si on of w hic h measure of da mag es to ap ply

. C. C. C ar lton In dus. , Ltd. v. Blanch ard , 3 1 1 S. W .3 d 65 4 , 6 6 2 (T e x. Ap p .–Au st in 20 1 0 , n o pe t. h. ) (ci ti n g TA Ope ratingCorp. v. Solar App lications En g'g, Inc. , 1 9 1 S.W .3d 1 73, 1 83 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Antoni o 2005, pet. g ra nted) ; Ma theus v. Sas ser

, 164 S.W .3d 453 , 458 (T e x. App .–Fo rt W orth 20 05, n o pet .) ). A tr ial cour t commi ts re v ersi ble er ro r w hen i t i nst ru cts the jur y on an improper measure of damag es. See Ar thur Ander sen & C o. v

. Pe rr y Equi p. C or p. , 945 S.W .2d 812 , 817 (Tex. 1997 ). Genera lly, “ [w]hen an i nju ry to lan d i s t emporar

y and can be remedia ted a t
re asona ble ex pense , t he proper measu re of damag es is the cos t o f rest orati on to i ts4

cond ition imm edia tely prece ding t he inju ry .” Mieth v. Ranch que st, Inc. , 177 S.W .3d 2 96, 3 0 3 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 st Dis t. ] 2 0 0 5 , n o pe t. ) (o p . o n reh ’g) (ci ti n g Kraft v. La ngf ord , 565 S. W .2d 2 23, 2 27 ( Tex . 197 8) ). “ How ev e r, t h e d iminuti on i n fair mar ketv alu e i s t he
measure of damag es w hen t he c ostof re sto ra ti on ex ceed s the di minut ion i n fair mar ket
v alue. Id. at30 3 -0 4 (cit in g Nor th Ridg e C or

p. v . Walr aven , 9 5 7 S

. W

. 2 d 1 1 6 , 1 1 9 (T e x. App.–E ast lan d 1997, pet. deni ed) ); see Atl as Chem . Indus. , Inc. v. Ander son , 514 S.W .2d 309, 319 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 1974) , aff'd , 524 S.W .2d 6 81 ( Tex . 197 5) ( op. o n reh’g). T he Po nto ns con ten d tha t, ba se d o n the ir calculations u sing R ichard Miller’s tes ti mony

reg ardin g the fair

mar ketv alu e o f

t h e M ill ers’ proper

ty , t he c ostto re sto re the dit ch and t he s h o re lin e ex ceeds the dimi nuti on i n v alu e of thos e s peci fic a re as of the Mill e rs’ pro p e rt y. Cit in g Ander son , t he Pon tons as ser t t hat the fair

mar ketv alu e of onl y

the damag ed por

ti ons of the proper

ty i s t o be cons ide re d i n d e te rm ini ng w hic h meas ure of damag es to ap ply

. See A nder son , 514 S.W .2d a t 319 ( appl y ing di minut ion i n v alu e as the
meas u r e o f d a ma g e s a n d h o l d i n g t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rt e d t h e j u r y ’ s fi n d i n g thatthe dimi nuti on i n v a lu e wa s $ 1 7 5 per ac re and that 60 ac re s o ut of 185 total ac re s w as damag ed)

. The M il lers a rgu e t h at t he fair mar ketv alu e of the enti re proper ty mustbe
cons ide re d i n det er mini ng w hether to appl y co st of res torati on or

di minut ion i n v alu e. Unl ik e i n Ander

son , no ev ide nce w as admit ted reg ardin g the dimi nuti on i n v alu e of eit her the enti re ty

of the M il lers’ proper

ty or sp eci fical ly

of the dit ch and s horeli ne. See i d. W e will n o t ass ume, as the Ponton s u rg e, t hat t he di minut ion i n v alu e of the dit ch and shoreli ne i s “ 100%. ” Thus, w it hout any record ev ide nce to suppor t the Pont ons’ arg ument,
w e c annot conc lud e tha t t he di minut ion i n v alu e of the dit ch and shoreli ne w as g re ater than the cost to resto re those areas. Ad dition al ly, a s the Ea stland Court of Appe als not ed inBecause we hav e ov er r ul ed t he Pont ons’ f i r st i ssue, we do not add r ess t hei r subi ssue i n whi ch t hey 2 s ta te th a t th e p ro p e r re l i e f, s h o u l d w e s u s ta i n th e i r firs t i s s u e , i s a re m a n d o n b o th d a m a g e s a n d l i a b i l i ty

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. 5 Nor th Ridg e C or

por ati on v . Walr aven , w hen det er mini ng w hether the co st o f

repai r or re sto ra ti on ex ceeds the dimi nuti on i n v alu e, t he di minut ion i n v alu e of the enti re proper

ty is to be co n sid ered. 957 S. W .2d 1 16, 1 19- 120 ( Tex . Ap p.–Eas tl and 199 7, pe t. deni ed) (fin din g thatw hen the cost of res torati on or repai r of the damag ed por ti on of the proper

ty is more th an six time s g reate r than th e v alue of the en tire prope rty , dimin ution in v alue is the p ro per

measu re of damag es)

. The Ponto ns’ first is sue is ov er ru led

. 2

III . S U FFI C I ENC Y OF TH E E V I DE NCE In th eir second issue, the Pont ons argue tha t the e v iden ce is legallya nd factu ally ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he jur y ’s damag es aw ards. Spec ific all y , the P ontons co ntend that the e v ide nce suppo rt ing the jur y ’s aw ard for

rest or ing the dit ch is factual ly i nsuffici ent a nd that the e v ide nce sup p o rt in g the j ur y ’s aw ard for re sto ri ng the shoreli ne i s l eg all y and factual ly i nsuffici ent. A . St and ard o f Rev iew W hen w e per

form a l eg al suffici ency rev ie w, we r e v iew

the ev ide nce in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the v erdict, credi ti ng f av orabl e ev ide nce if a reas onabl e person coul d and d isr e gar din g co ntrar

y ev ide nce unl ess a reason abl e person coul d not

. City of Ke l ler v. W il son , 168 S.W .3d 802 , 827 (Tex. 2005 ). W e de ny a legal suf f iciency challen ge unless: (1 ) there i s n o ev ide nce of a v it al fact; ( 2) the ev ide nce to prov e a v it al fact is no more tha n a scintilla; (3) th e rules of e v iden ce or law

prohibit th e con siderat ion of the on ly ev iden ce o ffe re d t o p ro v e a v i t a l fa c t ; o r ( 4 ) t h e e v i d e n c e c o n c l u s i v e l y e s t a b l i s h e s t h e o p p o s i t e o f a
v it al fact. See i

d. at 810. “ [M ]ore tha n a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce ex is ts if the ev ide nce ‘r is es6

to a level t h a t w ould ena ble reaso nab le and fair-mind ed p eop le to dif fer in their conclu sions.’” For

d Motor C o. v . Ridg way , 135 S .W .3d 5 98, 6 01 ( Tex . 200 4) ( q uoti ng Me rr ell D ow Phar

m ., Inc . v

. Havner , 953 S.W .2d 7 06, 7 11 ( Tex . 199 7) ). In con duct ing a fa ctua l suf f iciency rev iew , w e consid er all of the evidence a nd wi ll only reverse the jud gmen t if it is so against th e great w eight and credibility of the evidence
as to be cl ear ly

w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust

. Ar

ias v. Br ooks tone, L.P

. , 265 S.W .3d 4 59, 4 6 8 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 stDist .] 20 0 7 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Cain v. Bain , 709 S.W .2d 1 75, 176 (Tex. 1986 )). Beca use th e jury

is the sole judge of the credibility of the wi tne sses, it ma y

choo se to bel iev e one w it ness ov er anot her

. Id. (cit in g City of K eller , 168 S .W .3d a t 819 ). W e w ill not i mpose our

opi nio n to the c ontrar y . Id. Resolv ing conf licts in the e vid ence is also
w ithin th e jury ’s prov ince, a nd we “ m u st assum e tha t jurors resolv ed a ll conf licts in accord ance w ith the ir v erdict if reason able hum an b eings could do so.” Id. B. Th e D it ch Frank Blum berg, a b u s in essm an wi th experience in digg ing drainage ditche s, ins tal li ng se pti c s y ste ms, and es ti mati ng “ dir t v olu mes,” tes ti fied th at t he c ostto re sto re the dit ch w oul d be $91,000 , as sumi ng the dit ch is 400 feet lo ng , 30 feet w ide , and se v en feet deep. At thos e di mensi ons, approx imat ely 3,000 to 4,000 cubi c y ards of dir t w oul d need to be remov ed. Bl umberg stated that Ri chard Mi ll er prov ide d the dimensi ons to hi m and tha t he survey ed th e ditch app rox ima tely six y ears ea rl ie r, at w hich tim e he person ally obser v ed th e di tch to hav e these dimens ion s. W hen Bl umberg ev alu ated the d it ch after it had bee n f illed in, he did not“pu t a tap e to it,” buthe “think[ s] [tha t he] stepp ed it of f .” H e used thes e obs er

v ati ons w hen he cal cul ated the amount o f materi al and c ostof lab or to
re sto re the dit ch.7

How ev er , R ic hard M il ler tes ti fied that the ditc h w as 400 feet l ong , t hree to four feet deep, and ra ng ed i n w idt h from t en- to- tw elv e feet w ide at one end to thi rty -t o- thi rty -fiv e feet at t he ot her

end. Usi ng these new di mensi ons, Bl umberg es ti mated a re sto ra ti on c ostof approx imat ely

$30, 000 for re mov ing 1,15 7 c ubi c y ards of dir t. Bl umberg furth er

tes ti fied that the e sti mate of $91, 0 0 0 wa s b a se d on h is ca lc ula ti ons in 2008 bu t t hat i f he had act ual ly ca lc ula ted t he es ti mate in e a rly 2005, the est imat e w oul d hav e “ probabl y ” been $88,000

. Pau l Ponto n testif ied tha t he f illed in the d itch to a wi dth of app rox ima tely forty- six feetin o rd e r to make the ground lev el betw een the Po nto ns’ prope rty and the Millers’ proper ty

. The M il lers’ proper

ty i s s ev eral feet lo w er

than the Ponton s’ proper ty

. The Ponto ns cont end t hat B lumberg ’s opi nio ns are bas ed on unfounded
as s um pt i on s b ec au s e Bl um be rg u s ed me as urem en ts th at R i c ha rd M i l l er prov i de d to h i m, a n d R ic hard M il ler

co ntradi cte d tho se measurements at tr ial

. S e e Cit y o f K e l ler, 168 S.W .3d at 813 . Th e P o n t o n s assert tha t this Court can notdisregard Richard Mil ler’s cont ra ry tes ti mony . See i

d. H ow ev er , t he jur

y w as pre sent ed ev ide nce est abl is hin g that the d it ch w as 400 feet long ; thre e- to- four feet d eep or se v en feet dee p; an d tha t t he di rtto be remov ed c ov er ed ei ther a w idt h of t en- to- tw elv e fee t o thi rty -t o- thi rty -fiv e feet, thi rty feet,
or forty -s ix feet. Bl umberg “ ste pped .

. . off” the dit ch w hen he made hi s c alc ula ti ons that the d it ch w as 400 feet l ong , thi rty feet w ide , and sev en feet deep. It w as the j ur y ’s duty to
re sol v e thi s c onfli cti ng ev ide nce, and w e w il l not d is tur b the ir dec is ion on a ppeal

. See Ar ias , 265 S.W .3d at 468 . Th e jury ’s aw ard of $71 ,50 0 t o r e store th e ditch is not so ag ain st the w eig ht of the ev ide nce as to be cl ear ly w ro ng or

mani festl y

unj ust

. See i

d. C. The Shoreli ne The Ponto ns ass ert t hat t he ev ide nce to s uppor t t he j u ry’s a ward of $15,500 to8

restore th e sho reline is le gally and factu ally

insuf f icient. T he Po nto ns argue tha t the re is
no ev ide nce that dir

t w as re mov ed from t he s horeli ne and, al ter nati v ely , t hat i f d irt w as remo v ed, the evidence is not suf f icient to supp ort the conclusio n tha t the restoratio n cost is $15, 500. Spec ific all y , t he Pon tons ch allen ge the t est imony of Dav id Und er br ink , t he presi dent of Nai smi th E ng in e er ing , t he s ur v ey ing co mpany

hi re d by

the Mi ll ers. The Ponton s c ontend that Und er br ink ’s opi nio n i s u nfounded, arg uin g thathe b ased his opi nio n on R ic hard M il ler ’s st atements thatdi rthad been remov ed from t he s horeli ne. Unde rbrink testif ied th at Richard Miller hired Na ismith t o de term ine ho w much dirt had bee n rem oved f rom th e shore line. Richa rd Miller t old Unde rbrink thathe be liev ed d irt had bee n remov ed from a n area of about 300 feet to a depth of about t hree feet. N ais mith Eng ine er ing per

formed tw o s ur

v ey s i n N ov e m b e r 2006, one of w hic h w as tak en after Ri c h a rd Mi ll e r

h i r e d t h e co m p a n y t o d e t e rm in e t h e a m o u n to f m is s in g d irt

. T h e su rve ys
w ere ne ar l y

i de nt i c al a nd d i d no t i nd i c at e th ata ny d i rt ha d be en r em ov ed be tw ee n th e ti me of the two surv eys. Und er br ink

then ev alu ated th e s ur v ey i nformati on “ to s ee i n the co ntour ing i n the
sur v ey i nformati on . . . [w hether ] ther e w ere any

g oug es that loo ked li ke

. . . apparent h ole s in the g e n e r a l l a y o f t h e l a n d

. ” H e fo u n d s o me a p p a r e n t h o l e s , b u t t h e y w er e notas “d ra sti c” as R ic hard M il ler ’s es ti mate of three feet dee p. He cons er v ati v ely es ti mated t hat dir t had been re mov ed to a de pth o f one foot, for a tot al amount o f dir t remov ed of 1,000 cubic yards. T o calcula te t h e a m oun t remo v ed, Underbrink use d com put er mo deling, w hich all ow ed hi m to mode l the c ontours o f the s horelin e . W h e re the sur v ey sh ow ed a “d ip” wh il e t h e c o m p u t e r m o d e l s h o we d n o “d ip , ” U n d e rb ri n k“t ri e d t o a p p ro xim a t e wh a twe thoug ht w oul d be the n or mal sur face.” U nder br in k fur

ther tes ti fied abou t hi s met hod for9

d e te rm in in g ho w m u ch so il h a d be e n rem o ved , s ta ti n g: T he co mp ute r sy stem sets u p a gri d of point s and takes ele v ation s on this gr id sy stem for both surfaces, so it has an e x istin g s u rf a c e. And in this cas e[,] the upper

su rface is a hig her

surface, so i t t akes thos e g ri d poi nts and cal cul ates the v olu me under both , and [i t] jus t t akes s ubtract ion to find th e differenc e. Unde rbrink estim ate d tha t the cost to replace the 1,0 00 cubic y ards of dirt and to restore the s horeli ne w oul d be $15,500

. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , U nder br ink ag re ed th at if di rtw as re mov ed onl y to a dept h of one foot, t he remaini ng hol e w oul d be “i mperc epti ble w it h the ey e.” H e al so ag re ed th at it w as po ssible tha t no dirt h ad actu ally b een rem oved and t hath e w as no t an eyew itness to an y such rem oval. H owev er, Unde rbrink w as “v eryconf iden t” in his calculation thatdirt h a d b e e n r e mo v ed u p to a d ept h of one foot . Underbrink ba sed th is opinion on t wo groun ds: (1) Ri chard Mil ler’s statem ent tha t dirt had bee n rem oved; an d (2) Underbrink’s own compu ter mo deling of the con tou rs of

the sho reline, which indicate d tha t 1,0 00 cu bic y ards of dir

t had been re mov ed. T he Po nto ns con ten d tha t Unde rbrink’s opinion is underm ined byPaul P o n t o n’s tes ti mony

thathe h ad more dir

t than he needed to fil l in the d it ch. The P ontons al so arg ue that Roc ky

Y banez ’s , the ow ner of t he bul ldo z er Paul Pont on hi re d to cl ean t he s horeli ne, tes ti mony

refutes Under br ink ’s co ncl usi on th at di rthad been remov ed. Y banezst ated that Paul Pont on hi re d hi s c ompany to cl ear the shoreli ne of br ush and ot her debr is and that Y banez , Pa ul Ponton , and Y banez ’s bul ldo z er o p e rator met t o di sc uss the area Pau l Ponton w anted cl eared. Paul Pont on di d noti nst ru ct eit her Y banezor

the bul ldo z er operator to re mov e any

dirt; how ev er , Y banezdi d notsu per v is e the ac tual w or k t he operator per

formed and coul d not sta te defini ti v ely that no dir t had been re mov ed dur ing10

the c lea ri ng proces s. During t ri a l, Underbrink view ed a picture w hich sho w ed a g iant p ile of deb ris, inc lud ing di rt , br ush, and trees, thatthe bul ldo z er operator remov ed from t he s horeli ne and push ed o nto the Po nto ns ’ prop erty. Unde rbrink note d tha t the remo v al of 1,00 0 cub ic y ards of dirt from an area of

app rox ima tely 300 feetand a de p t h of abo ut on e footis
cons is tent w it h such cl ear ing ac ti v ity . Und er br ink st ated, “ I t hin k t he c alc ula ti ons and t he
assum ption s I mad e for p rodu cing th ose calculat ions mo re clo sely follow the little b it of dirt that g ets sc ooped u p w it h c lea nin g v eg etati on.” Und er br ink ’s opi nio n w as cons is tent w it h Y banez ’s tes ti mony

reg ardin g the w or k Y banez ’s bul ldo z er operator

per formed for the Pon ton s. The ju ry ’s duty

wa s to r e solv e any

co nflicts in the e v ide nce and t o w eig h the
credi bil ity

of the w it ness es. See Ar ias , 265 S .W .3d a t 468

. T he evidence before the jury
w as such thatreason able peo ple c o u ld d iff e r in their conclusion s and is thus legally
su f f ic ien t. See Ridg way , 1 3 5 S

. W

. 3 d a t 6 0 1

. O u r r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e P o n t ons’ l eg al suf f iciency challen ge also re solves th eir a ssertion t hatt he trial co urt erred by denying the ir moti on to di sreg ard and for j udg ment notw it hst andi ng the v erdict. See B & W S upp ly, Inc.
v. Beckm an , 3 0 5 S

. W

. 3 d 1 0 , 1 5 ( Te x . A p p . – H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t

. ] 2 0 0 9 , p e t

. d e n i e d ) (“ An app ellate court revi ews a [jud gmen t notw ithsta ndin g the v er d ic t ] u nde r a no-evidence sta ndard of r ev iew .” ); She ll Oil Prods. Co. v. Main Street Ve ntu res, L.L .C. , 90 S.W .3d 3 75, 387 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2002, pet. dis m'd b y ag r. ) (“ A tr ial co urt may dis re g ard a jur y findi ng and g ra nt a moti on for JN OV o nly w hen t here is no ev ide nce to suppor t the findi ng .” ) (c it ing Ma n c o r p , In c . v . C ulp epper

, 8 02 S. W .2d 226 , 227 (Tex. 1990 )). Add itiona lly , the jury ’s
v erdict is n ot“ s o ag ai ns t th e g r ea t w ei g hta nd c r ed i bi l i ty o f t he e v i de nc e as t o be c l early11

w rong and m anif estly unju st.” Ar ias , 265 S .W .3d a t 468

. Th erefore, th e evidence is also factual ly su ff ic ien t. Id. W e ov er ru le the P ontons ’ sec ond i ss ue. IV. J OYC E P ONT ON In t hei r thi rd appel lat e i ss ue, t he Pon tons as ser t t hat the ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly i nsuffici ent t o s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s ans w er

to q uest ion n u mber one i n the ch arg e. Que stion n um ber o n e a s k e d t he jury, “ Did the Po nto ns trespa ss on the Mil ler’s [sic] proper ty ?” The c har ge d e fined “ trespas s” as “ enter [i ng ] ano ther ’s l and w it hout cons ent”
w hic h “c an be made by per mitt ing a thi ng or person to c ro ss the boundar y of a proper

ty .” Spec ific all y , t he Pon tons arg ue th at t he ev ide nce is l eg all y a n d factual ly

i nsuffici ent t o supp ort a con clusion th at Joyce Pon ton trespasse d on the Millers’ lan d

. T h e Mil lers
co n te n d th a t t h e Po n to n s h a ve waive d th is is su e by fa ili n g t o : (1 ) obje ctto th e ch a rge inc lud ing both Jo y ce and P a u l; ( 2) rais e thi s i ss ue i n the ir moti on to di sreg ard and for jud g ment notw it hst andi ng the v erdic t; and ( 3) sp eci fical ly ch all eng e i n the ir

moti on for new trial the jury’ s f inding tha t bot h Pon ton s co mm itted t respa ss against the Mil lers. The Mil lers further as ser t t hat t he ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he j ur y ’s findi ng tha t Joyce Ponto n com mitt ed tresp ass against th e Millers. A . Pres erv ation T o p ro p e rl y p re s e rve e rr o r , t h e p a rt y a ll e gi n g e rr o r m u s th a ve m a d e a t im e ly, spec ificobj ect ion or

moti on to the tr ial co urt and musthav e recei v ed an adv erse ru li ng on the o bje cti on. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1. I n t h e ir m o ti on for new tr ial , t he Pon tons spec ific all y

as ser ted t hat the ev ide nce w as leg all y and factual ly ins uff ic ien t to s uppor t t he jury ’s fin ding thatthe “Pon ton s” comm itted t re spass. By so doing, the Pont ons p rope rly preser v ed th eir co mplai nt t hat t he ev ide nce is l eg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he12

jur y ’s co ncl usi on th at J oy ce Ponton co mmitt ed trespas s. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 324( b) (2 ) (requir ing a partyto include a factu al suf f iciency challen ge in a motio n for n ew trial); El-Kho ury v. Kheir

, 241 S.W .3d 82, 86 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [1s t Di st. ] 2007, pet. deni ed) (stating thata legal suf

f iciency challen ged ma y be prese rv ed b y

including the a rg um entin
a mo tion for new trial). H owev er, b y p re s e rvi ng this issue in their mo tion for new trial, shoul d w e s ust ain thei r arg ument, the P ontons w il l be ent it led to, at most, a remand. See El-Kho ury , 2 4 1 S. W .3 d at90 (cit in g Wer ne r v . Colwe ll , 9 0 9 S

. W

. 2 d 8 6 6 , 8 7 0 n . 1 (T e x. 199 5); Hor

ro ck s v . T ex. D ep't of Tr ansp. , 852 S.W .2d 498 , 499 (Tex. 1993 ) (per curiam )). B. Leg al an d Fact ual Su ff icien cy The Ponto ns all eg e tha t t he ev ide nce demons tr a ted t hat J oy ce Ponton w as not respo nsible f or any trespass tha t occurred on the Mil lers’ property. D uring direct
ex aminat ion , J oy ce Ponton ag re ed th at s he di d not“ hav e anythi ng to do w it h the mow ing out t here on the M il ler

proper ty or the cl ear ing of

the br ush. ” She further ag re ed th at s he did not “ hav e anythi ng to do w it h c all ing the [C ity of Cor pus Chr is ti ] and g etti ng per mis si on to do thatcl ear in g.” A d d it ion all y , J oy ce did not per form any mai ntenanc e on the d it ch. How ev e r , d u r i n g c ro s s - e x a mi n a t i o n , s h e s t a t e d t h a t , d u r i n g t h e c o u rs e o f a p ro p e rty dis pute w it h the pr ior

ow ners of t he Ponton s’ lot , she and Pa ul Ponton recei v ed per mis si on to g o on the l and atw hic h poi nt, “w e s tar ted c lea nin g [t he di tch ] a n d tak ing ca re of [the ditch] to prote ct aga in s t the trees falling i n. . . .” Addition ally , dur ing cross -e x aminat ion , Pau l Ponto n agreed th at he and Joyce Pon ton “hired a bulldo z er to do some w ork out th ere at th e lake. . . .” P aul Po nto n also te stif ied th at, o nce th ey too k ov er the p rope rty , “the f irst t h in g we d id is t ry t o ge t t h e d it c h t o wh e re it wo u ld d ra in b e c a u s e o f t h e s m e ll

. . . . An d we could not rem ove the w ate r.” Lat er, Pau l Ponto n stat ed, regarding the ditc h , “ we f illed itPr i or t o t he co ncl usi on o ft he e v i dence i n t he u nder l y i ng t r i al , t he p ar t i es ag r eed t hat , by adv er se 3 p o s s e s s i o n , t h e P o n to n s a c q u i re d ti tl e to th e s u rf a c e a re a e n c ro a c h e d u p o n b y th e b u l k h e a d

. In i ts ju d g m e n t, t he t r i al cour t i ncor por at ed t he par t i es’ agr eem ent and r ender ed j udgm ent v est i ng t i t l e i n t he Pont ons t o t he pr oper t y f or m er l y owned by t he M i l l er s upo n whi ch t he b ul k head encr oached

. 13 in. ” Y banez tes ti fied that he charg ed the Ponton s $3,425 for the bul ldo z e r work they hired hi m to p er

form on t he s horeli ne. The re cord cont ain s a chec k for $3,425, si g ned by Joyce Ponto n an d ma de p ayable to Yban ez’s com pan y . Yban ez con f irmed t hatthis check
w as pay ment for the w or k d one atthe shoreli ne. The Ponto ns hav e a b u lkh e a d on the s horeli ne. Acc ordin g to Lar ry F is her , t he
surv ey de partm entd irector for Na ismith Engineering w ho p erforme d a survey of the Millers’ prop erty, the Pon ton s’ bulkhe ad e ncroa c hes slightly onto the Millers’ prop erty. Joyce Ponton referred to the bul khead as “ our bul khead .” Pa ul Ponton co nfi rmed thatthe bul khead “ sti ck s o v er

i nto t he M il ler

proper ty .” 3 As the t ri ers o f fact , t he j ur y had the du ty to r e so lv e the co nflic ts in the e v ide nce. See Ar ias , 265 S .W .3 d a t 468

. The ju ry heard J oy ce Ponton ’s co ntradi cto ry tes ti mony conce rning the Pon ton s’ actions in relatio n to th e ditch . Th e jury a lso had ev iden ce be fore it thatthe bulkhea d owned by the Pon ton s encro ache d on the M illers’ prop erty. Th e jury “may re sol v e inc onsi ste nci es in the tes ti mony of an y w it n e ss .” McGa ll

iar d v . Ku hlm ann , 7 2 2 S. W .2 d 69 4 , 6 9 7 (T e x. 19 8 6 ) (ci ti n g Benoit v . Wil son , 150 Tex . 273 , 239 S.W .2d 7 92 (195 1)). “Th ey ma y

ch oose t o believe one w itness a nd d isbelieve ano the r.” City of K eller , 168 S.W .3d at 819 . W e “cann ot imp os e [ our] own opinio ns to th e con trary .” Id. W e conc lud e tha t t he ev ide n ce b efore t he j ur y w as suc h tha t reason abl e peopl e c oul d di ff er in thei r conc lus ion s and is thus l eg all y su ff ic ien t. See Ridg way , 1 3 5 S

. W. 3 d a t6 0 1

. W e14

f urthe r con clude t hatt he jury ’s dete rmina tion th at th e Pon ton s trespasse d on the Millers’ land w as no t “so against the g reat weig ht an d credibility of t h e e vid e n ce as to b e clearly
w rong and m anif estly unju st.” Ar ias , 265 S.W .3d at 468. Therefore, t he j ur y ’s ans w er

to q uest ion one is su ppor ted b y factual ly su ff ic ien t ev ide nce. Id. The P ont o n s’ third i ss ue ov er ru led

. V. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of the Pontons ’ appel lat e iss ues, w e af firm the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________ _________

_________

___ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Del iv ered and filed the 26th day of Aug ust , 201 0.