Court Opinion

ID: 3098043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:48:57.74181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:11.689331
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-12-00084-CV
                                       
                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                       
                       FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                       
                                  AT AMARILLO
                                       
                                    PANEL A
                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUGUST 30, 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                       
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF LEANNE FARRELL COLLIER AND ROBERT GREG COLLIER AND IN THE INTEREST OF R.C.C., A CHILD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                       
                FROM THE 99TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
                                       
                NO. 2007-539,120; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

                              CONCURRING OPINION
                                       
	The Court's disposition of this appeal is correct, and our disposition is properly and adequately supported by our conclusion the trial court accurately understood the scope of the remand from our first opinion. See Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1986) (concerning limiting issues on retrial following remand).  But the Court's opinion does not stop there, and applies the doctrine of the law of the case to the issues the husband sought to re-litigate on remand, those being the characterization and valuation of the horses.  In my view our application of the law of the case doctrine here is not necessary to the disposition of the appeal, and its application to the characterization and valuation issues, fact-bound determinations in this case, is improper.  I therefore do not join in the Court's opinion but only its judgment.
								James T. Campbell
							                  Justice