Court Opinion

ID: 9611908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:01:14.651894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:17.434117
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
Joe G. Perl has filed a motion for rehearing in which he contends that both the majority and dissenting opinions are in error in concluding that the agreement in question is one covered by Section 15(a)(6)(G) of the Real Estate License Act.3 Perl now argues that, because the agreement is not one in which he agreed to perform services, it is not a contract covered by this provision of the Act.
Thomas L. Patrizi, et al., correctly point out in their response that Perl has provided no authority for his current position. Further, Perl’s position in his motion for rehearing differs substantially from that taken in the lawsuit. His position in the lawsuit is summarized by a statement contained in his initial brief before this Court: “Mr. Perl proved that he had a valid written agreement ... that he performed brokerage services pursuant to the commission agreement and was the procuring cause of a consummated lease...”
A party may not take a position on appeal that is inconsistent with its position in the trial court. See Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Gammage, 668 S.W.2d 319, 321-22 (Tex.1984); Nebgen v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 898 S.W.2d 363, 366-67 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995, writ denied); Stewart & Stevenson Servs., Inc. v. Enserve, Inc., 719 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.App.*84Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The motion for rehearing is overruled.

. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. 6573a, § 15(a)(6)(G) (Vernon Supp. 2000).