Court Opinion

ID: 9863177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:10:06.611527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:47:49.678934
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
Following our affirmance of the trial courts take nothing judgment, appellant filed this motion for rehearing.
In our prior opinion we asserted two reasons to deny appellant-plaintiff’s appeal. First, we discussed the appellant’s oral trial amendment and second, we discussed appellant’s failure to request any additional findings of fact.
This court, on its own initiative, during oral arguments, raised the question of the effectiveness of appellant’s trial amendment. We held appellant’s oral trial amendment did not meet the pleading requirements of TEX.R.CIV.PROC. 45(d) (Vernon 1979) and was, therefore, ineffective to amend appellant’s original pleadings. The result was that appellant was bound by the amount he originally pled and thus, was not entitled to recover additional monies from appellee.
This court should not have considered any error not raised or argued by either party. The Texas Supreme Court has held that it is error for a Court of Appeals to consider unassigned points of error. American General Fire & Casualty Co. v. Weinberg, 639 S.W.2d 688 (Tex.1982). When a point of error is not preserved in accordance with TEX.R.CIV.PROC. 418(d) (Vernon Supp.1983) the error is not properly before the appellate court for review. The failure to present a point of error amounts to a waiver thereof. McBurnett v. Gordon, 534 S.W.2d 370 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont, 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.) and cases cited therein.
Findings of facts are the decisions of the judge and reflect the ultimate and controlling factual issues of a plaintiff’s claim or a defendant’s defense. From the findings of fact the trial court judge draws his conclusion of law which support his disposition of the case at bar.
If a party deems the findings or conclusions supporting the judgment incorrect or incomplete he should request specified, additional or amended findings. TEX. R.CIV.PROC. 298 (Vernon 1977). Where the court’s findings of facts are unchallenged, these findings will constitute undisputed facts binding on all the parties. City of Ft. Worth v. Bewley, 612 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland, 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.) These findings will be sustained if there is any evidence in the record to support them. C.R. Groyes v. Business Men’s *835Assur. Co., 635 S.W.2d 872 (Tex.App.—Tyler, 1982, no writ).
In this case, the trial court filed five specific findings of facts. The judge found that “Holmes [appellant] failed to perform work in a good, workmanlike manner” and “failed to construct according to certain City of Beaumont building specifications.” Further, the court found that “Bankston [appellee] was required to perform additional services outside the existing oral contract to bring said substandard work to City of Beaumont Standards.”
We have reviewed the record and we find sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact. We therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment, and overrule the motion for rehearing.