NO. 07-06 -005 1-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU LY10, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ DAVID GUT IERREZ, APP ELL ANT

V. DU AN E TILLM AN , AP PELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 15 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L AM B CO UNT Y; TH NO . 166 36; H ON ORABLE FEL IX KLEI N, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t D av id Guti er re zfil ed a conv ersi on ac ti on ag ain st appel lee D uane Ti ll man, and now app eals a take -noth ing jud gmen t rend ered for Tillma n after a be nch trial. W e w ill aff ir m the jud g ment.
Pl anni ng to demoli sh a r ural sc hool bui ldi ng , i n Oc tober 2004 the S udan Indepen dent Scho ol Di str ic t aucti oned s ome i tems loc ated at the si te. Gut ier re zatt ended th e a u ct io n a nd, a mong othe r it ems, boug ht t he bui ldi ng ’s br ic k. H e pai d $50. 00 for the brick, estim ating the building conta ined some 205 ,00 0 bricks.The s ale i s e v ide nced by a bil l of sal e trans ferr ing the eq uip ment used by W est

. 1 T he a greem entdoe s not ad dress T illman ’s assum ption of W est’s con tracts. 2 T he sch ool district also con tracte d w ith Dw ayne W est, who did b u s in e s s a s SDS Contra ctors, to dem olish the buildin g and bury the ma terials leaving the site level. W est tes ti fied he w as ins tr uct ed to w aitunti l after the first of the y ear to beg in the d emoli ti on, t o all ow purchas ers o f items to re mov e the m from the bui ldi ng . Guti er re zdepend ed on the d emoli ti on c ontract or to knoc k d ow n the w a lls of the bui ldi ng and make the bri ck av ail abl e to him. He col lec ted the bri ck s byhand and l oaded the m on a trailer, hau ling abo ut 15 00 bricks per load. W est be gan dem olition in March 2005, but i n l ate A pr il 2005, he s o ld the SC S C ontract ors b usi ness and eq uip ment t o Til lman. 1
Base d on his di sc uss ion w it h W estaboutthe len g th of ti me i t w oul d tak e to compl ete t he demol it ion , G uti er re zex pect e d to hav e ac ces s t o the br ic k u nti l the e nd of Jul y 2005. Bu t Ti ll man bel iev ed th e s chool dis tr ic t w anted the s it e c lea re d promptl y , and after he as sumed re spons ibi li ty for t he w or k he proce eded to complet e the demolit ion of the b uil din g and bur ial of the r ubbl e. Guti er re zw as abl e to haul a t otal of some 2 2,000 to 23 ,000 br ic ks from t he s it e before the deb ris w as bu ried. Conte ndin g T il lm a n wrongfu lly ex ercised con trol over his proper ty by cu tti ng sh ort hi s a cc ess to the b ri ck , G uti er re zbroug ht su it agai nsthi m for conversion. Af

ter receivi ng ex hibits, and he aring testimo ny f rom Gu tierrez, T illman , W est3

and a damag es w it ness for G uti er re z , t he tr ial cour t re ndered a tak e- nothi ng j udg ment, and lat er made find ing s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law at the req uestof Guti er re z . By i ts si ng le conc lus ion of law , t he tr ial co urt c ouche d i ts denia l of rec ov er y to Guti er re zi n ter ms of w aiv er , stati ng , “Bec ause [Gut ier re z ] w aiv ed anyrig ht t o pos ses si on or ow nershi p of the br ic k b y hi s fai lure t o r e m o ve the b ri ck pr ior to 1/1/2 005 he canno t sus tai n a cause of acti on for conv ersi on.” O n appea l, Gut ier re zatt ack s t he c oncl usi on. He cont ends itw as not sup p o rt ed by pl eadi ng s a ss erti ng w aiv er , and i g nored th e ag re ement of the par

ti es. H e al so arg ues his e xerc is e of poss ess ion of the b ri ck w as subj ectto the c ondi ti on precede nt t hat t he bui ldi ng be d emoli shed.
W e rev iew

the cor re ctn ess of

the tr ial court ’s concl usi on of l aw as a l eg al q uest ion , a ffo rd i n g n o d e fe r e n c e t o t h e t r i a l c o u rt

. BM C So ftwar e Bel giu m , N.V. v. Ma rchand , 83 S.W .3d 7 89, 7 94 ( Tex . 200 2) ; see State v . Heal , 917 S.W .2d 6 , 9 (Tex . 199 6) ( q uest ion s of law rev iew ed wi tho ut de feren ce to lower court’s conclusion s). If we find the cou rt’s conc lus ion of law

i s e rroneous , butthe cour t rendered th e proper

j udg ment, the e rroneous conc lus ion does not req uire rev ersal of the j udg ment. BMC Software , 83 S.W .3d a t 794

. Con v ersi on i s t he unau thor iz ed and w ro ng ful ass umpti on and ex er ci se of domini on and control ov er

the personal proper

ty of another

to the e x cl usi on of, or

i ncons is tent w it h, the o w ner ’s r ig hts

. W

aisath v. Lack’

s Stores, Inc. , 474 S.W .2d 444, 446 ( Tex . 197 1) ; Sm it h v. Maxim umRacing, In c. , 136 S.W .3d 337 , 341 (Te x. A p p . –Au stin 20 04, no pe t.). His conv ersi on c lai m thus req uired Gu ti e rrezto est abl is h tha t Ti ll man w it hout author iz ati onW hen as ked his understa ndi ng of “h ow l ong y ou had t o do the [ demoli ti on] j ob,” 2 W estrespon ded, “I w asn’ t on a ti me sc hedul e on the job

. They [the sc hool di str ic t] w anted itas so on as pos si ble .” Til lman als o tes ti fied to his understa ndi ng that the d is tr ic t w anted the d emoli ti on c omplet ed as so on as pos si ble

. 4 ex er ci sed domini on ov er the br ic k to the ex cl usi on of, or i ncons is tent w it h, G uti er re z ’s r ig hts in the b ri ck

. Id

. The cour

t’ s fin din g s o f facti ncl uded t he unc hal len g ed findi ng s t hat G uti er re z re mov ed th e i tems he purchas ed atthe au ct io n, ex ceptfor t he br ic k, before t he end of 2004; that he did not attempt to re mov e the br ic k from the bui ldi ng pr ior to Janua ry 1, 20 05, but reli ed on the demoli ti on cont ra cto r to demoli sh the bui ldi ng ; and that he w as all ow ed acc ess to the b ri ck

before itw as bur ied

. Guti er re zdoes not cont end t he demol it ion co ntract ors h ad any o b liga ti on to sepa rate th e brick f rom th e oth er building deb ris. Com pletio n of the de mo li tion co ntract ine v it abl y

i nv olv ed bur ial of any

bri ck remain ing among the deb ri s. The ev ide nce suppo rt s a c oncl usi on that, after Janua ry 1, 2005, Guti er re z ’s ri g hts in the b ri ck w ere s ubj ectto the act ion s o f the demol it ion co ntract or . W hen as ked about his agree m e n t w it h the sc hool district conce rning his po ssession o f t he brick, G utierrez te stif ied the district said, “I w ould hav e to make a rra ng ements w it h the person doi ng the demoli ti on.” Al thoug h, as note d, Guti er re ztes ti fied to hi s u ndersta ndi ng he w oul d hav e until the end of Ju ly to haul off

the br ic k , W e s t t e s t i fi e d h e t o l d G u t i e r r e z “ h e c o u l d g e t t h e b r i c k s a s l o n g a s I w a s w or ki ng there. W hen I g ot t hroug h w e w oul d be throug h.” W estal so tes ti fied, w it h reg ard to 2 Guti er re z ’s r ig ht t o the br ic k, he to ld Til lman that “[ Guti er re z ] c o u ld ge t them as l ong as5

[Til lman] w as w or ki ng out there.” Ti ll man deni ed hav ing any ag re ement w it h Gut ier re zto all ow hi m acc ess to the b ri ck for a ny par ti cul ar per iod of ti me. W e agree w ith T illman thatno af f irmative defense of

w aiver is nece ssary to sust ain the t ria l co u rt ’s fail ur e to find hi m li abl e to Guti er re zfor c onv ersi on. W e c oncl ude t hat Guti er re zsi mply

fail ed to es tabl is h tha t Ti ll man’s bur ial of the de b ri s, inc lud ing the re maini ng br ic k, w hen he finis hed dem o lis h in g the sc hool bui ldi ng w as inc onsi ste nt w it h Guti e rre z’s ri g hts bec ause, after Ja nuar y 1, 2005, thos e r ig hts w ere s ubordin ate t o the co n t ra c t o r ’ s d e c i s i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e p a c e o f d e mo l i t i o n . A c c o rd i n g l y , t h e a b s e nce of plea dings alleging w aiver doe s not call for rev ersal. Guti er re znext c ontends the tr ial courtdisreg arded ev ide nce of his ag re ement w it h the demoli ti on c ontract ors. In a v ar iat ion on t hat c ontent ion , he arg ues the d emoli ti on w as a cond ition prece den t to his exercise of p ossessio n of

the bricks. Both conte ntion s must fail. Gutierrez is correct that e v iden ce sho w ed h e cou ld nottake po ssession of the brick before t he w all s of the buil din g w ere k nock ed dow n. And, as he arg ues, i t i s u ndi sput ed t h e d e m o li t io n wa s n o tt o b e gi n u n t il a f t e r J a n u a ry 1 , 2 0 0 5

. Bu tn o e vid e n c e sh o ws Til lman, or

W est , ag re ed to adj ustthe pace of t h e d emoli ti on, a fter J anuar y 1, 2005, to Guti er re z ’s sc hedul e or the speed w it h w hic h he coul d re mov e the br ic k. And, as noted, ev en Gu ti er re zac know led g ed that hi s p oss ess ion req uired “ ar ra ng ements w it h the person doi ng the demoli ti on.”6

Finding no reversible error in the t rial cou rt’s jud gmen t, w e overrule Gutierrez’s sole is sue and affirm the j udg ment.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice