Opinion ID: 2455468
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Cross-Points

Text: We turn now to the court of appeals' dismissal of the Donwerths' cross-points. The Donwerths asserted by cross-points in their appellees' brief before the court of appeals that the trial court erred in not awarding them appellate attorneys' fees as a matter of law. They did not, however, perfect a separate appeal by filing their own cost bond under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(1). The court of appeals held that a separate appeal was required. We disagree. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(4) is dispositive on this issue. It states: Notice of Limitation of Appeal. No attempt to limit the scope of an appeal shall be effective as to a party adverse to the appellant unless the severable portion of the judgment from which the appeal is taken is designated in a notice served on the adverse party within fifteen days after judgment is signed, or if a motion for new trial is filed by any party, within seventy-five days after the judgment is signed. [4] By its plain language, this rule provides the sole means by which an appellee's complaints on appeal can be restricted. We confronted this same issue in Hernandez v. City of Fort Worth, 617 S.W.2d 923 (Tex. 1981). In Hernandez, as in this case, the court of appeals refused to consider appellees' cross-points which sought more relief than appellees had received from the trial court, because appellees had not perfected an independent appeal. In reversing the court of appeals, we held: An appellee may use cross-points to bring forward complaints of some ruling or action of the trial court that the appellee alleges constituted error as to him. [Citations omitted.] It is not necessary to perfect two separate and distinct appeals, unless the judgment of the trial court is definitely severable, and appellant strictly limits the scope of his appeal to a severable portion. [Citations omitted.] Hernandez, 617 S.W.2d at 924. We reaffirm that holding today. Unless an appellant limits his appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(4), an appellee may complain by cross-point in his brief in the court of appeals, without perfecting an independent appeal, of any error in the trial court as between appellant and appellee. [5] In this case, the court of appeals was required to consider the Donwerths' cross-points. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. PHILLIPS, C.J., files a concurring opinion in which GONZALEZ and COOK, JJ., join. RAY, J., files a concurring opinion in which MAUZY and HECHT, JJ., join.