No. 03-13-00101-CV 

In the Court of Appeals 

for the Third Judicial District 

Austin, Texas

RENT-A-CENTER, INC., 

 Appellant, 

v. 

GLENN HEGAR, COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS; AND 

KEN PAXTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Appellees.

On Appeal from the 

250th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas 

APPELLEES’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

 KEN PAXTON

 Attorney General of Texas 

 CHARLES E. ROY

First Assistant Attorney 

 General 

SCOTT A. KELLER

Solicitor General 

MATTHEW H. FREDERICK

Deputy Solicitor General 

State Bar No. 24040931 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) 

Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

Tel.: (512) 936-6407 

Fax: (512) 474-2697 

Matthew.Frederick 

 @texasattorneygeneral.gov 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES

ACCEPTED

03-13-00101-CV

6038669

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

7/13/2015 1:51:14 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/13/2015 1:51:14 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
ISSUE PRESENTED

Whether the Court of Appeals should decide, in the first instance, a 

question that the district court did not reach, rather than remand and 

allow the district court to make appropriate findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. 

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 

Rent-A-Center’s motion for rehearing should be denied because 

remand is necessary for further proceedings. The motion for rehearing 

rests on an incomplete statement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

43.3, which provides: 

When reversing a trial court’s judgment, the court must 

render the judgment that the trial court should have 

rendered, except when: 

(a) a remand is necessary for further proceedings; or 

(b) the interests of justice require a remand for another 

trial. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 43.3. Rent-A-Center argues that the Court should rule, in 

the first instance, on the cost-of-goods-sold issue because it “must render 

the judgment that the trial court should have rendered.” Mot. for Reh’g. 

3. But Rent-A-Center omits the qualifying clause, “except when . . . a 

remand is necessary for further proceedings.” TEX. R. APP. P. 43.3. 
2 

In this case, remand is necessary because the trial court did not rule 

on Rent-A-Center’s claim regarding its cost of goods sold. The district 

court concluded, in light of its ruling on the retail-trade issue, that “the 

issue regarding cost of goods sold is moot.” CR 114. Accordingly, the trial 

court did not determine the cost of goods sold by Rent-A-Center in 2007, 

nor did it determine whether that figure must be reduced to account for 

depreciation claimed by Rent-A-Center. 

“[A] court of appeals can reverse the trial court’s judgment only 

when the trial court is in error.” Chrismon v. Brown, 246 S.W.3d 102, 116 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Because the trial court 

entered no judgment on the cost-of-goods-sold issue, there is no error to 

address. The trial court’s only error, as determined by this Court, 

concerned the question whether Rent-A-Center was engaged primarily in 

retail trade. Because the trial court’s ruling on that issue prevented it 

from reaching the cost-of-goods-sold issue, the appropriate remedy is to 

remand so that the trial court may address that question in the first 

instance. 
3 

PRAYER

Appellees respectfully request that the Court deny Rent-A-Center’s 

motion for rehearing and remand for further proceedings. 

 Respectfully submitted. 

 KEN PAXTON

 Attorney General of Texas 

 CHARLES E. ROY

 First Assistant Attorney General 

 SCOTT A. KELLER

 Solicitor General 

 /s/ Matthew H. Frederick 

 MATTHEW H. FREDERICK

 Deputy Solicitor General 

 State Bar No. 24040931 

 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

 P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) 

 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

 Tel.: (512) 936-6407 

 Fax: (512) 474-2697 

 Matthew.Frederick 

 @texasattorneygeneral.gov 

 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 On July 13, 2015, this Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing was served 

via CaseFileXpress on: 

Farley P. Katz 

Forrest M. Seger III 

STRASBURGER PRICE OPPENHEIMER BLEND

300 Convent Street, Suite 900 

San Antonio, Texas 78204 

Daniel L. Butcher 

P. Michael Jung 

STRASBURGER PRICE

901 Main Street, Suite 4300 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Robert M. O’Boyle 

Clinton A. Rosenthal 

STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP 

720 Brazos Street, Suite 700 

Austin, Texas 78701 

 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

 /s/ Matthew H. Frederick 

 MATTHEW H. FREDERICK
5 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

 In compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(2), this 

brief contains 380 words, excluding the portions of the brief exempted by 

Rule 9.4(i)(1). 

 /s/ Matthew H. Frederick 

 MATTHEW H. FREDERICK