Court Opinion

ID: 9676543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:26:40.042715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:49.438694
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
KENNEDY, Justice.
Appellee Intercity Management Corporation asks us to affirm that part of the trial court’s judgment which was entered upon the stipulations of the parties. Specifically, the parties stipulated that appellants were indebted to Intercity for $5,920.03 for royalties and taxes as well as a stipulated amount for attorney’s fees. Appellate courts, as well as trial courts, must give effect to valid stipulations. See Geo-Western Petroleum Development, Inc. v. Mitchell, 717 S.W.2d 734 (Tex.App.—Waco 1986, no writ); New v. First National Bank of Midland 476 S.W.2d 121 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1971, writ ref d n.r. e.). Appellants assert by response to the Motion for Rehearing that the judgment does not reflect the parties’ stipulation. This is correct. The parties to the stipulation were plaintiff, Intercity Management Corporation and defendants, Charlie Nee-ley and Earl Gilbert. The judgment speaks to the “plaintiffs.” The judgment is reformed to reflect that the stipulation is between plaintiff Intercity Management Corporation and Neeley and Gilbert. No point of error was brought concerning Intercity’s right to attorney’s fees. Therefore, the portion of the judgment stipulating attorney’s fees is also affirmed. Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded in accordance with our opinion.
BENAVIDES, J., not participating.