Court Opinion

ID: 9748783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:12:44.935635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:39.337655
License: Public Domain

DAVIE L. WILSON, Justice
dissenting.
Because I believe the majority is not heeding the Supreme Court’s warning regarding “hyperteehnical” interpretations of former appellate rule 53(d), Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex.1991) 1, I respectfully dissent.
Today’s decision effectively denies appellants a ruling on the merits of the case and in a macro sense, makes the practice of pursuing appeals on partial records far more exacting than necessary to faithfully serve the language and purpose of the rule.
The majority seems to base its opinion on the alleged general nature of appellants’ points of appeal contained in a document entitled, Notice of Limitation of Appeal, although appellant is also criticized for filing it outside of, and before, the request for partial record. Specifically, I interpret the majority’s narrow holding to be that appellants’ Notice of Limitation of Appeal is “insufficient to satisfy the strict requirements of Rule 53(d)” and; therefore, the appeal must be dismissed without reaching the merits.
Although the majority’s language never directly states that filing a purported statement of points in a Notice of Limitation of Appeal is sufficient compliance with Rule 53(d), the majority could not decide the case as it does without first determining that the language of the points was properly before the appellee. The appel-lee urges in its brief that the appeal should be thrown out merely because the request for partial record did not contain the statement of points, even though the points were in another differently styled document. The majority necessarily rejects appellee’s “strict” interpretation in reach*299ing the issue it does, but then adopts “strict” guidelines in determining whether the language of the points is sufficient under the rule.
The majority cites CMM Grain Co., Inc. v. Ozgunduz, 991 S.W.2d 437, 439-40 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1999, no pet.) in support of its position. In CMM, the court stated that “appellants announced in their notice of appeal the desire to limit their appeal to the trial court’s denial of their offset claim.” Id. The court further noticed the absence of any attempt to provide the appellee with the statement of points or issues to be presented on appeal. Id. In making its decision, the court observed that “while the terminology of the statement of points need not be exact, the statement should describe the nature of the complained of error with reasonable particularity.” Id.
The statements contained in appellants’ Notice of Limitation of Appeal are far more detailed than the simple short-handed statement the court rejects in CMM and, given the points of error ultimately briefed, I would hold them as descriptive of the complained of error with reasonable particularity.
The points of error briefed were fully argued before the panel with the appellee suffering from no apparent disability from the limitation of the trial record. I would proceed to determine the merits of the appeal.
Accordingly, I dissent.

. Although in Schafer the court discussed "hy-pertechnical” interpretations in a different context than in this case, I perceive the court’s warning to relate to the interpretation of the rule generally.