1 ... T he H o no rab l e E l m a T ere sa S ali na s E nd er p resid ed o ve r t h e t r i al, ex ce p t f o r t he clo si ng arg um en t s, del i bera t i ons , an d ent r y of j udgment , wh i ch wer e pr es i ded o ver by T he H onorabl e Raul V as quez. i i i i i i



### OPIN ION No . 0 4- 08 -0 07 86 -C V Mark CA NT U , Appellant
v . GU E RRA & MO O RE , L T D. , L L P. , a nd Rom e ro , G on zal e z & B e navid e s, L L P, Appellee s Fr om the 111th J udicial District Court, Webb County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CVQ- 000954-D2 Honora ble Raul Vasque z, J udg e Presiding 1 Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: October 28, 2009 AF F I RME D I

N PA RT, REV ERS ED AN D R EM AN DE D I N PA RT This is an appeal from a final judgme nt enter ed in favor of a ppellees, f

ollowing a

jury trial in a dispute betwe en attorne y s with competing claims to attorney ’s fe es. We reve rse the dir ecte d04
- 08
- 00 78 6- CV

- 2- ve rd ic t in fa vo r o f a pp e llee, Ro mer o, Go nza le z & B e navid e s, L L P; w e re ve rs e the awa rd of c os ts ag ainst appellant, Mar

k Cantu; and we r emand, in par t, for fur ther proc eedin gs . We affir m the jud g me nt i n a ll o the r r e sp e c ts. BACK GR OUND This suit over attorney ’s fe es has its orig in in a product liability /wrong ful death action ar ising from the Septembe r 2004 death of Santa Mag dalena Gonzalez and from i n

j u ri es t o her br other, Z a c ar i a s G o n z a l e z . Z a c ar i a s o r i g i n a l l y r e t a i n e d t h e l aw f

i r m o f G u e r r a & M o o r e , Lt d
. , LLP (“G uerr a”) in J anuar y 2 0 05. L ess than one month later , he ter minated that re prese ntation and reta ined the L aw Of

fice s of Mark Ca

ntu, which filed the pr oduct liability /wrong ful death lawsuit on J uly 18, 2005. At this ti me, Glenn Romero, Juan Gonzalez, a nd Rick Be navides wer e associate s at the Cantu law fir

m. I n November 2006, Romero, Gonzalez, and B enavide s left to form their ow n law firm, Rom ero, Gonzalez & B enavide s, L L P (“RG& B” ). Also in November 2006, the Gonzalez fam il y ter mi nat ed t hei r rep res ent ati on wi th th e C ant u fi rm andret ain ed R G&B. The Gonzalez family

rea ch ed a s ettlement with the def endants in their pr oduct liability /wrong ful death lawsuit in late 2 0 0 6 ; h o weve r, while that suit was still pending, Guerr a filed a ple a in interve ntion asser t i n g its right to forty perc ent of a

ny rec overy obtained by

the Gonzalez family
. On J anuar y 16, 2007, the Gonzalez family , repr esente d by RG&B , filed a motion to remove Cantu a s an at t orney of re cord in the pr oduct liability /wrong ful death suit. C antu and RG&B eventua lly rea ched an ag ree ment over how to allocate attorney ’s fe es and e x penses f ollowing settlement of the product liability /wrong ful death suit. On April 25, 2007, the trial court sig ned an ag ree d order

(1) or deringRG&B to drop any and all interve ntions pending a g ains t C an t u in other lawsuits; (2) re moving Cantu a s an attorne y from the law suit; (3) ordering the foll owing division of04
- 08
- 00 78 6- CV

- 3- attorney ’s fe es: (a) 56.5% t o Cantu, (b) 10% to the L aw Office s of Andres Rey es and Mario Castillo,
and (c ) 3 3. 5% to R G& B ; and (4 ) o rd e ri ngthat all re a so na ble c os ts a

nd e xpe ns e s in c ur

re d b y Cantu be paid in full. On May 14 , 2 00 7, Gu e rr a

fi le d a n ame nd e d p le a

in i nte rv e nti on , a lle g ingcla ims a g a ins t C an tuf o r l i b e l an d t o rt i o u s i n t e r f

e r e n c e w i t h t h e c o n t r a c ti th a d t o r e p r e s e n tt h e G o n z a l e z f a m i l y. On May 24, 2007, the attorne y ’s fe es allocated under the April 25, 2007 agr eed or der w ere deposited into the court’s re g istry . On J une 26, 2007, the trial court sig ned an or der ( 1) g rantingdisbursal of dama g e s to the Go nza le z fa mil y purs ua

nt to the se ttl e me nt of the pr od uc t liab ili ty

/w ro ng fu l de a th lawsuit, (2) order ing disbursa l of attorney ’s fe es held in the c ourt’s re g istry to RG&B and to the L aw Of fi c e s o f A nd

re s Re y e s and Mari o Cas til lo, and (3 ) or de ri ng that th e fe e s a wa rd e d to Cantu

re ma in in the court’s r eg istry

pending resolution of the interve ntion filed by Guer ra. On F e br ua ry 14 , 2 00 8, Cantu

fi le d a thi rd -p art y pla int if f’ s o ri g ina l pe tit ion , a lle g ingc la ims for breac h of fiduciary duty and fraud aga inst RG&B
. On Fe bruar y 15, 2008, Cantu filed a motion to r ecuse J udg e Raul Vasque z on the g rounds that he se rved a s a mediator in the se ttlement that led to the April 25, 2007 ag ree d order
. The mot ion to rec use was denied by the admini strative judg e. On April 21, 2008, RG& B filed its counter -suit ag ainst Cantu, alleg ing he brea ched the settlement that led t o the April 25, 2007 agree d order and askingfor r escission of that ag ree ment. Trial bef ore a jury commence d in April 2008. Following trial, the cour t signe d a final judgment, orde ring that (1) Gue rra

rec over $1.6 million plus int ere st ag ainst Cantu, (2) Cantu wa s not entitled to any of the funds he l d i n t h e co u rt ’s re g istry , (3) RG& B w as solely entitled to the funds held in the cour t’s reg istry , and (4) Cantu’s contra ct wit h the Gonz alez family was il leg al and void. Cantu’s motion for
ne w tri a l w a s d e nie d, and he fi le d th is a

pp e a l.04
- 08
- 00 78 6- CV

- 4- STATUT E OF LIMITATIONS I n his first issue, Cantu asserts Gue rra ’s claims for tortious interfer ence with both an exis ting contra ct and a

prospec tive contra ct wer e bar red by the statute of limit ations. Acc ording to Cantu, Guer ra’ s tortious int erf

ere nce c lai m acc rued on F ebrua ry 23, 2005 when Gue rra

was fir st notified by Z aca rias Gonzalez that he wa s terminating repr esentation with Guerra . Guer ra f iled its first plea in i nte rv e nti on

on Janu ary 5, 20 07, b ut d id n ot n a me Cantu a s a de fe nd ant u

nti l G ue rr a

fi le d it s amende d plea on Ma

y 14, 2007. There fore , Cantu conclude s, Guerr a’s c laims ag ainst him are timebarr ed. See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 16 .0 03 (t wo -ye ar l imi tatio ns fo r i nte rf e re nc e wi th a contr act) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). At trial, Guer

ra argued it did not di scover Cantu’s tortious interfer ence until May 2007. The jury was a sked by

what date Guer

ra should have , in the ex erc ise of re asonable diligenc e, discove red Cantu’s interfe renc e with the contr act, a nd it responded, “ May

1, 2007.” On a

ppeal, Cantu a

rg ues the evidenc e is insufficient to support this finding a nd he re lies on a judicial admission by Guer ra in its firs t supplemental plea in intervention in which it stated: “Exercising rea sonable dilig ence , [Guerra ] onl y

lear ned of f acts whic h would place [i t] on notice of acc rual of the slande r and tortious interfe renc e . . . ca

uses of a ction in Dec embe r 2006 .” [Emphasis added.] Fa cts alleg ed or admitted in a party ’s live pleading s are acc epted as true by the court a nd jury and ar e binding on the pleade r. Houston First Am. Sav. v. M usick , 650 S.W .2d 764, 769 (Tex. 1983). Howeve r, a pa

rty relying on his opponent’s pleading s as a judicial admission of fa ct, must protect his reco rd by

objecting to the introduction of evidenc e contr ary to that admission of fact a nd by objecting to the submissi on of any issue bear ing on the fac t admitted. Id. Fa ilure to object wa ives a par ty ’s rig ht to rely

on the admission. See id. a t 76 8. At tr ia l, Carl os Gu e rr a , one of Gu e rr a ’s name04
- 08
- 00 78 6- CV

2 ... M o re o v e r, e v e n if the ju ry w a s b o u n d b y the a d m issio n tha t “[G u e rr a ] o n ly le a rn e d o f f a c ts w h ic h w o u ld p l ace [i t ] on no t i ce o f

accrual of t he sl and er and t o rt i o us i nt erf erence . . . causes o f

act i o n i n D ecem b er 20 0 6 , ” G uerra added Cant u t o t he s ui t wi t hi n t wo y ear s of D ece mb er 200 6 when i t f i l ed i t s s uppl ement al p l ea i n i nt er ven t i on on M ay 1 4 , 2 0 0 7
. See T

r i ni t y R i ver A ut h. v. U

R S C on s ul t an ts , I

nc. - Tx. , 8 8 9 S .W .2 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 2 (T e x . 1 9 9 4 ) (s ta ting ge n e ra l ru le t hat a c aus e of

ac t i on ac cr ues as s oo n a s def endan t ’ s wr ongf

ul act ef f ect s s om e i nj ur y ; howev er , un der di s cover y r ul e, cause of act i o n i s d eem ed not t o accrue unt i l t he i njury be co m es di scoverab l e).

- 5- partne rs, was a sked whe n he first lea rned that “somethi n g m i ght be amiss” and he answe red a s fo llo ws : A. Wel l, t

he fi rs t ti me that w e fo un d o ut t hat Ma rk Cantu ha d g on e to the c lie nts and, in fa ct, dictated that letter and – and had Z ac sign it and send it to us was in May of, I believe, 2000 – w ell, Ican’ t rec all the y ear . Was it l ast y ear ? Q. ‘07? A. Ibelieve so. Y es. I t was May of last y ear . We found out that Mr. Cantu had g one over there and – and ba dmouthed me. [Cantu ’s a tto rn e y ]: Exc us e me , Y our h on or . . . . T hat’ s o uts ide the ple a din g s. Hi s c omm e nt. [Trial court]: Objection overrule d. On a pp e a l, Cantu do e s not as se rt the tr ia l court e rr e d in ove rr uli ng his ob

je c tio n. B e c a

us e the w it n e s s’s admitted testimony contra dicted the state ment contained in Gue rra ’s first supplemental plea in interve ntion, the jury was not oblig ated to ac cept the statement in the pleadingas true. 2 Cantu also challeng es the suff iciency of the e v i dence by

asser ting Gue rra

was a war e of Ca ntu’s involvement in the Gonzalez family ’s lawsuit in Fe bruar y 2005, which is when Z aca rias sent his te r m i n a t i o n l e t t e r t o G u e r

r a . T h e r e f

o r e , C an tu ar g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e G u e r r a kn e w a

b o u this inv olv e me nt m or e tha

n tw o y e ars be fo re Gu e rr a a dd e d Ca

ntu to i ts M ay

20 07 a mende d plea

in intervention, the discove ry rule doe s not apply

as a matter of law . Although Ca ntu a rg ues F ebrua

ry 2005 is the disposit ive date, the jury deter mined Guer

ra discove red Cantu’ s interfe renc e on May 1, 20 07 . A c c or din g ly , w e mus t a dd re ss whe the r t

he e vid e nc e is f

a c tua lly su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

thi s04
- 08
- 00 78 6- CV

- 6- finding . I n a hand-written letter dated Febr uary 23, 2005, Z aca

rias Gonzalez informed Gue rra he no longe r wa nted Guer ra to re prese nt him, st ating , “I have ne ver me t y ou all and asked [sic] that y ou not bother me or c all me or I wil l go t o t h e State bar

and re port y ou.” Carlos Gue rra testified he assumed the f

amily was still “ver

y much hurting from what had happe ned,” a nd they did not want to “ do any

thi ng .” Exc e pt t o r e tur

n the fi le s to the fa

mil y , Ca rl os sa id h e did

no t c on ta c t th e fa

mil y afte r re ceivingthe letter be cause the letter a sked that he not do so. In May 2007, afte r the Gonzalez family reta ined RG& B, Car los Guerr a told Glenn Romero he wa nted to speak w ith the family to find out more information abou t wh y t h ey had ter minated Guer

ra’ s repr esentation. A meeting was
arr ang ed at Guer

ra’ s office s, and Carlos Guer ra testified it wa s at this time that he lear ned Cantu had “badmouthed him.” Z aca rias testified that, at the meeting , he explained how Cantu “took over the
case .” Mi chae l Moore, another of Guer ra’ s name partners, testified he did not know “any thing wa s amiss” when his fir

m rec eived the termination letter, and he assumed the Gonzalez family was not int e re ste d in

purs uin g the lit ig a tio n. Mo or e a g re e d w ithCarl os that th e y c ou ld n ot c on ta c t the fa

mil y ba se d o n th e re qu e st n ot t o d o s o. Mo or e sa id he le arn e d a bo ut Cantu ’s “ ba d a c ts” fo r the fi rs t ti me
a tt h e M ay

2 0 0 7 m e e t i n g , a tw h i c h t i m e i tb e c a m e a p p ar e n tt h e f

a m i l y ’ s “ d e c i s i o nt o t e r

m i na te [G u e r r a ] w a s n o t t

h e r e s u lt o f – of grief

, but it w a s th e r e s u lt

o f anin f lu e n c e b y [C an tu ]. ” We conclude the evidenc e is fa ct u ally sufficie nt to support the jury ’s finding that Guer ra discove red Cantu’s interfe renc e on May 1, 2007; there fore , Guer ra’ s tortious interfe renc e claims are not timebarr ed.04
- 08
- 00 78 6- CV

3 ... O n a p p e a l, C a n tu d o e s n o t ch a llen g e the ju ry’s find ing tha t he inte rfe re d w ith G u e rr a ’s co n tra c t with Z ac arias.

- 7- TORTIO US INTERFERENCE WITH A P ROSPECTIVE CONTRACT 3 The jury found t hat C antu “intentionally interfe red w ith a rea sonable proba bility that Guer ra & Moor e, L td., L L P would have ente red into a contra ctual relationship with J ulian Gonzalez [ fathe r of Santa Ma g da le na

and Z a c ari a s] by

c omm itt ingan unla

wful act that

wa s a su bs tanti a l f

a c tor in pr e ve nti ngthe re latio ns hip fr om o c c ur ri ng .” I n h is s e c on d is su e , Ca ntu a sse rts th e evi dence is fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o sup port

thi s f ind ing . M or e sp e c if

ic a lly , Ca ntu argue s th e e vid e nc e is insufficient to suppor

t a ny finding that J ulian Gonzalez would have sig ned a c ontrac t with Guerra
. On e of the e le me nts of a c la im fo r tor tio us int e rf

e re nc e wi th a

pr os pe c tiv e c on tr a c t is that th e re mus t be a “ re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity” that the pla int if

f w ou ld h a ve e nte re d in to t he pr os pe c tiv e re latio ns hip or contract. Johnson v. Bay lor Univ., 188 S.W .3d 296, 304 (Tex. A pp.—Waco 2006, pet denied)
. Be cause that i s the only element spe cifica lly

challeng ed on appe al, we do not c onsider the sufficie ncy of t he evidence on the ot her elements of the claim. To establish this element, Guer ra ha d to prove that more than mere neg otiations occurr ed. Ri c ha rd so n-Ea gle , I nc . v . W ill iam M. Me rc e r, Inc. , 213 S.W .3d 469, 475 (Tex. App.—Hous t o n [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) . “Thoug h it is not
nece ssary to prove that the c ontrac t woul d h av e certainly been ma de but for the interfe renc e, that result must have be en re asonably probable , consideringall of the fa cts and c ircumstance s attendant to the transac tion.” Id. at 475-76. Z aca rias testified he was the one who hired the lawy er for t he family and his fathe r di d not intend to retain a

differ ent lawy er. Z aca

rias s ai d h e h ad no plans to dismis s Guerr a until the day Cantu appea

r e d , u n inv it e d , a t h is h o me an d to ld Z a c ar ia s h e c o u ld

d o a b e tt e r jo b th anG u e r

r a. Z aca rias said that, but for Cantu’s involvement, he would have continued to re tain Guer ra. Julian04
- 08
- 00 78 6- CV

- 8- Gonzalez testified that after the death of h i s d au gh ter a nd the injuries to his son he was upset a nd depre ssed, and he did not “even think about” hiring or looking for a nother l aw y er. When a sked whether he wanted a law y er diff ere nt from whomeve r Z aca rias hire d, J ulian responde d, “Whatever lawy er Z ac g ot” and he “just went alongwith Z ac.” We conclude that J ulian’s t estimony that he lef t the deci s i o n ab o u t who to retain to Z aca rias, couple d with Z aca

rias’ te stimony

that he re tained Guer ra a nd would have c ontinued to do so, was suffic i en t ev i d en ce to support the jury ’s implied fi nd ingthat th e re wa s a “ re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity” that J uli an wou ld have e nte re d into a c on tr a c t w ith Guer ra. EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE At trial, Cantu attempted to introduce into evidenc e a letter fr om Guerr a to Z aca rias, which Guer ra se nt when it returne d the case files to Z aca rias af ter he terminated G uerr a’s r epre sentation. The trial c ourt sustained objec tions to t he letter , and, on appe al, Cantu asser ts this ruli ng amounted to a n a bu se of dis c re tio n be c a

us e the le tte r wa s re le va

nt to sho w Gu e rr a re pu diate d the c on tr a c t w ith t h e G o n z a l e z f

a m i l y. Z aca rias ter minated his repr esentation with Guerra on Fe bruar

y 23, 2005. On t hat same date, he and Julia n e a c h s ig ne d a

re pr esent a tio n a g re e me nt w ithCantu . A t tr ia l, C antu so ug ht t o a dmi t
a le tte r d a te d F e br

ua ry 24 , 2 00 5 f

ro m G ue rr a

to Z a c ari a s, wh ic h s tate d a s f oll ow s: Dea r Mr. Gonzalez, [si c] in response to your letter dated Fe bruar y 23rd, 2005, please be advise d that we have closed our file. You may have a valid case or nee d to protect viable leg al rig hts and reme dies. Acc ording ly , we sug g est that y ou contac t another law firm or the L awy er’ s Refer ral Servic e in orde r to obtain another lawy er as soon as possible, if y ou desire to pur sue this matter.

. . .04
- 08
- 00 78 6- CV

- 9- Thi s le tte r con

fir ms the fac t th at w e ha v e no t ad v ise d y ou to t

ak e an ysp e c ifi c actions conce rning your legal matter. W e havenot advised you that you settle your legal matter and we havenot acted as your attorney s in any way.
. . . . [Emphasis added.] At trial, Cantu argued the e mphasized lang uag e wa s re levant to the issue of the damag es soug ht by

Guer ra a nd to whether

Guer ra “r epudiated” the existence of a ny contra ct with the Gonzalez family
. On appeal, C antu contends the t rial court’s err or i n excluding the letter ha rmed him be cause the letter contra dicts any alleg ation that he tortiously interfe red w ith either an e x isting contra ct with Z aca

rias or a prospec tive contra ct with J ulian. We disag ree . We reviewa trial c ourt’s ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence for a n abuse of discretion. In te rst

ateNor thb or ou

gh P’ sh ip v . S tate , 66 S.W .3d 2 1 3 , 2 20 (Tex. 2001). Her e, Z a c ari a s sig ne d a Cont ing e nt F e e Con tr a c t with Gu e rr a , an d the n ter min a te d th e re pr e se ntatio n le ss tha n o ne mon th l a te r. Gu e rr a ’s le tte r d oe s n oth ingmor e tha t c on fi rm tha t, i n th e sh or

t pe ri od of tim e of re prese ntation, the Guer ra firm did not a dvise Z aca rias “to take any

specific actions conc erning [hi s] l eg al matter,” did “not advise[] [Zac aria s to] settle [the] leg al matter,” and did “not ac t[ ] as [Zac aria s’s] attorney s in any way .” We, there fore , conclude the letter is not re levant to show
re pu diatio n b y

Gu e rr a of the Con tin g e nt F e e Con tr a c t. A c c or din g ly , th e tr ia l c ourt di d no t er r i n denying a dmission of the letter into evidence
.04
- 08
- 00 78 6- CV

4 ... T he part i es do not ci t e t o a s et t l ement ag r eement an d t he r ecor d on appeal d oes not co nt ai n one . T her ef ore, our di s po s i t i on of

t hi s i s s ue r es t s on t he l ang uag e c ont ai ned i n t he agr eed order
. “ A n agr eed j udgment has t he s ame ef f ect as an y cour t j udgment
. ” G ul f I ns . Co. v . Bur ns M ot or, I nc. , 2 2 S
. W
. 3 d 41 7 , 42 2 (T ex. 20 0 0 ). “ A n agreed judgm ent s houl d be cons t r ued i n t he s ame mann er as a c ont r act
. ” I d.

- 10- RE SCI SSIO N After closing arguments, RG&B moved for a direc ted verdic t on their “c ounterc laim for
re sc iss ion ” of

the Ap ri l 25 , 2 00 7 ag re e d o rd e r r e g ard ingthe div isi on of a tto rn e y ’s fe e s. 4 On

a pp e a l, Cantu argues the trial c ourt err ed in g rantingthe direc ted ver dict. We ag ree . Rescission is an equitable remedy that exti ng uishes leg ally valid contra cts that must be set
as i d e because of fr aud, mistake, or othe r re asons in order to avoid unjust enrichment. Martin v. Cadle Co., 13 3 S. W.3 d 8 97 , 9 03 (T e x. Ap p. —D a lla s 2 00 4, pe t. d e nie d) . B e c a us e re sc iss ion

is a
reme dy and not an independe nt cause of action, RG&B had to first establish its right to a dire cted
v er d i ct o n o n e or more of its claims ag ainst Cantu. A direc ted ver dict is proper w hen: (1) the opponent’s plea dings a

re insuff icient to support a judg ment; (2) the evidenc e conc lusively proves a fa ct that establishes a

party ’s rig ht to judgment as a matter of l aw; or (3) the evidence offe red on
a ca use of a ction is insufficient to rai s e an issue of fac t. Rudolph v. ABC Pest Control, Inc. , 763 S.W .2d 930, 932 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1989, writ denied). I n its c ountersuit ag ainst Cantu, RG&B alleg ed cla ims for brea ch of c ontrac t and fra ud. At trial, RG&B did not specifica lly reque st a direc ted verdic t on these cla ims; i nstead, it argued it was entitled to rescission of the April 25, 2007 ag ree d order on the g rounds that Cantu had bre ache d the underlying se ttlement ag ree ment. Be cause RG&B did not move for a direc ted ver dict on its fraud claims, we na

rrow our revie w to whether

RG&B was e ntitled to a direc ted verdict on its brea ch of contra ct claim.04
- 08
- 00 78 6- CV

- 11- Where a n ag ree ment can be g iven a de finite leg al meaningor interpr et ati on, it is not ambig uous and the c ourt will construe the contra ct as a matter of l aw. Cok e r v . Co k e r, 650 S.W .2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983). An ag ree ment is ambiguous only if it is reasona

bly susceptible to more tha

n
o n e in te r p r e ta tion. Id. Whe the r a n a g re e me nt i s ambi g uo us is a qu e sti on of law f or the c ourt to decide by looking at the ag ree ment as a w hole in light of the circ umstances pr es en t wh en the ag ree ment was e ntere d. Id. at 394. When an ag ree ment contains an a mbiguity , th e gra n t i n g o f a direc ted ver dict is improper because the i nterpre tation of t he ins trument become s a fact i ssue. See Cok e r, 65 0 S. W.2 d at 39 4 ( g ra nti ngmot io n for

summa ry jud g me nt i mpr op e r whe re a mbi g uit y
e xists ); see also Stinger v. Ste wart & Steve nson Servs., Inc

. , 830 S. W. 2 d 7 1 5 , 7 2 1 ( T e x. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (Dra ug hn, J ., dissenting) (g rantingdirec ted ver dict improper whe re a

mbiguity exis ts). RG & B argue d it

wa s e nti tle d to re sc issio n o f t he se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt b e c a us e Cantu brea ched the settlement ag ree ment by pursuing his claims for bre ach of fiduciar y duty and fr aud
a g a ins t RG & B
. Ac c or din g to RG & B , the se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt re qu ir e d a ll pa rt ie s to r e le a se the ir
re sp e c tiv e c la ims . Ca

ntu argue s th e a g re e me nt c a lle d o nly fo r R G& B to re le a se its c la ims a g a ins t him and the a g re e me nt did

no t r e qu ir e him

to r e le a se any

c la ims he mig ht h a ve a g a ins t RG & B . With
re g ard to any c la ims on e pa

rt y ha d, or may have , a g a ins t ano the r, the a g re e d o rd e r s tate s a s f oll ow s: “I t is therefor e orde red that law firm [R G& B] will drop any and all I nterve ntions curr ently pending aga i n s tM ark A. C an tu an d / o r h i s l aw fi rm wi t h p re

j u d i ce as s o o n as p o s s i b l e. ” No s i m i l ar l an gu age
was a ddresse d to any

claims by

Cantu ag ainst RG&B
. F or the tr ia l c ourt

to h a ve g ra

nte d RG & B a dir e c te d ve rd ic t on its bre a c h of c on tr a c t c la im, the court was require d to f ind e ither that the ag ree d order un am big uo us ly require d Cantu to drop any04
- 08
- 00 78 6- CV

- 12- c la ims he ha d a g a ins t RG & B , o r t hat th e a g re e d o rd e r c on ta ine d a n ambi guit y on

the pa rt ie s’ in ten tio ns and

the e vid e nc e e sta

bli sh e d th e pa

rt ie s intended

th a t a ll r e s p e c ti v e c la im s b e dr opped. Be cause the direc ted ver dict was g rante d partially on issues of law, w e must review the trial cour

t’s decision on those issues for leg al co rr ec t n ess. Cf. Cal law ay v . O v e rh olt , 796 S.W .2d 828, 831-33 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, writ denied)( in directe d verdic t case , trial court’ s interpre tation of unambig uous contrac t provision upheld as a matter of law)
. The a g ree d order

contains no languag e dire cting Cantu to take, or not take, a ny action. Th e re fo re , w e c ann ot c on c lud e the a g re e d o rd e r u nambi g uo us ly

re qu ir e d Ca

ntu to d ro p a ny c la ims he had a g ainst RG&B . I f the trial c ourt’s direc ted ver dict was b as ed on its determination that the ag ree d order

contained a

n ambig uity , a dire cted ve rdict wa s improper beca use the interpre tation of the par ties’ settlement ag ree ment beca me a fac t issue for the jury to decide. T here fore , the direc ted verdic t in favor of

RG&B was improper ly

g rante d and must be re verse d. M OTI ON TO REC USE A b o u t th r e e mo n th s b e f

o r e tr ia l c o mm e n c e d , Ca

n tu f il e d a mo ti o nto r e c u s e Ju d g e V a s qu e z, which wa s denied by

J udg e David Peeples. On appea l, Ca ntu a sserts J udg e Peeples e rre d in denying his motion. An appellant’ s brief “must contain a clea r and concise argument for th e contentions made, with appropriate c itations to authorities and to the rec ord.” T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1(i). Cantu’s
rec or d c it a ti o n s in

h is a p p e ll a te b r ie f

ar e to th e tr an s c r ip t o f

th e tr ia l o nth e me r it s an d n o t t o the transcr ipt of the rec usal hea ring . Also, an appellant bear s the burden to present a n appellate court
w it h a s u f f ic ie n t r e c o r d s h o w in g r e v e r s ib le err or. T EX . R. A PP . P. 35.3(b). The r ecor d on appea l do e s n ot c on ta in a tr ans c ri pt of the re c us a l he ari ng . B y fa ili ng to br ing fo rt h a su ff ic ie nt r e c or d to show reve rsible er

ror, Cantu ha s waived a

ny rig ht to complain of the allege d err or on appeal. See04
- 08
- 00 78 6- CV

- 13- W orthy v. Collagen Corp. , 921 S.W .2d 711, 713 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995) ( holding same), aff’d , 9 6 7 S
. W
. 2 d

3 6 0 (T ex . 1 9 9 8 ). E v en i f h e h adn o twa i v edt h i s i s s u e, an d ev en as s u m i n g J u d ge Pe e p le s e r

r e d in d e n y in g Ca

n tu ’ s mo ti o n to r e c u s e Ju d g e V a s qu e z, Ca n tu h a s n o t s h o w n he wa s harme d. J udg e Ende r pre sided over t h e t ri al , g rante d the direc ted ver dict in favor of RG&B , and
awa rded sa nctions ag ainst Cantu. J udg e Va squez only pre s i d ed o ver c losing a

rg uments and jury deliberations, he signe d the final judg ment afte r the jury returne d its verdict ag ainst Cantu, and he signe d the orde r deny

ing Ca ntu’s motion for new trial. Be cause J udg e Ender presided over the trial on the merits, Cantu ca

nnot show harm on this rec ord.

SANCTIONS I n his fi n al i s s ue, Cantu asse rts the trial cour t erre d in sanctioning him in the amount of $10,000 in favor of

Guer ra a nd $10,000 in favor of

RG&B . On April 29, 2008, RG& B a nd Guer ra moved for mone tary

sanctions based on Cantu’s repe ated violations of the c ourt’s ruling s on a mot ion in l imi ne . T he tr ia l c ourt he ld t he re qu e st f

or sa nc tio ns in ab e y anc e pe nd ing the e nd of tr ia l. On Apr il 3 0, 20 08 , RG & B mov e d f or de a th p e na lty

sa nc tio ns , a g a in b a se d o n Ca ntu ’s c on du c t. Ag a in, the c ourt ru le d to ho ld the re qu e st i n a be y anc e . O n M ay

1, 20 08 , RG & B and

Gu e rr a a g a in asked that Cantu be sanctioned. T his tim e the c ourt g rante d the motions for sanct i o n s , finding “a repe ated c ourse of

conduct e x tremely

eg reg ious in it s nature, a ppare ntly desig ned to occa sion a mistrial” and ac tions “intentionally disrespec tful and [which] appear to be in bad fa ith . . . .” The
c o u rt c o n c l u d e d t h a t , d e s p i t e r e p e a t e d l y a dm o n i s h i n g C an tu , “ n o a m o u n t o f c a u t i o nt o t h e a t t o r

n e ys for [Cantu] , or Mar

k Cantu himself, who has bee n actingas co- counse l , has had a ny eff ect.” The
c ourt awa rd e d RG & B and Gu e rr a e a c h $1 0, 00 0, bu t de nie d th e re qu e st f or de a th p e na lty

sanc tio ns .04
- 08
- 00 78 6- CV

- 14- Our re view of the rec ord re veals the tria l court did not abuse its discre tion in sanctioning Cantu. He repe atedly violated the limine or der, as well as other ruling s by the trial cour

t, and he wa s repe atedly

admonished by the court. Also, Cantu’s argument on appea l that cer tain matters that were the s ubject of the m otion in limine should not have been e x cluded lac ks merit. “Attorne y s may not violate a c ourt order

even thoug h they

may believe the orde r is incorre ct.” Vulcan Materials Co. v. Bo we rs , No
. 04 -0 4- 00 06 2- CV , 20 04 WL 29 97 85 2, *3 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio De c . 2 9, 20 04 , p e t. denied) (not desig nated f or publi ca t i o n ) (p roper

reme dy is to appeal, “ not to ignore a cour t’s leg itimate exercise of its authority to rule on evide ntiary

matters”)
. CO NC LU SION We r e ve rs e the dir e c te d v e rd ic t in fa vo r o f R G& B and re mand RG & B ’s c la ims a g a ins t Ca ntu fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. Th e tr ia l court ’s jud g me nt o rd e re d th a t “ [a]ll c os ts s pe nt o r i nc ur re d in thi s
cause are adjudg ed ag ainst” Cantu. B eca use we reve rse the dir ecte d verdic t in favor of RG&B , such
a n a wa rd of c o s t s m ay n o l o n g e r b e e qu i t a b l e an d j u s t
. T h e r e f

o r e , w e r e m an d t h e aw ar d o f c os ts ag ainst Cantu for re consideration in li g ht of our disposition on appeal. We affir m the trial court’ s jud g me nt i n a ll o the r r e sp e c ts.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice