Court Opinion

ID: 9771319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:39:11.374835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:28.574234
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the partial remand. The majority holds that the jury finding on attorney’s fees is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. This may be. However, it is beside the point.
The appellee never sought a new trial before the trial court. TEX.R.APP.P. 52(a) requires that to preserve an appellate point, a party must have first presented such point to the trial court. In addition, TEX.R.CIV.P. 324(b), requires that a complaint of factual sufficiency be raised in a motion for new trial.
Additionally, even if the trial court’s judgment were to be considered a judgment n.o.v., appellee has not properly raised the remand by cross-point. TEX.R. CIV.P. 324(c). Appellee simply argues that the trial judge was empowered to disregard the jury finding and substitute the court’s own finding. Since appellee has neither preserved the point below, nor properly presented it to this court, I would hold the point has been waived; therefore, this court errs in remanding for a trial on the attorney’s fees.