Court Opinion

ID: 2890497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-07 21:01:01.613447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:36:36.345577
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-02-0424-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

JUNE 14, 2004
______________________________

ROBERT BROWN, TRUSTEE FOR FIRST CITY LIQUIDATING TRUST 
AND MARVY FINGER, TRUSTEE FOR THE WILLIS RANCH JOINT VENTURE,

		Appellants

v.

DAVID HAYWOOD, 

		Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 75TH DISTRICT COURT OF LIBERTY COUNTY;

NO. 62,610; HON. J.C. ZBRANEK, PRESIDING
__________________________________

On Motion for Rehearing
__________________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.	
	Pending before the court is the motion for rehearing of David Haywood.  He
questions the accuracy of our prior opinion via the assertion that we have failed to comply
with the rules applicable to conducting a factual sufficiency review in reversing the
judgment.  We overrule the motion.
	As illustrated in our opinion, we were required to interpret a written document, i.e.
the June 7, 2001 letter.  Construing a written document is a question of law, not fact; this
is especially so given that no one argued, nor did the trial court conclude, that the June 7th
letter was ambiguous.  Cross Timbers Oil Co. v. Exxon Corp., 22 S.W.3d 24, 26 (Tex.
App.-Amarillo 2000, no pet.) (stating that the construction of an unambiguous contract
involves a question of law).  Nor did we find its wording susceptible to two reasonable yet
conflicting interpretations or ambiguous.  See American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer,
124 S.W.3d 154, 157 (Tex. 2003) (stating this to be the test when determining whether a
writing is ambiguous).  Moreover, the question being one of law, we were entitled to
consider it de novo.  Cherokee Water Co. v. Freeman, 33 S.W.3d 349, 353 (Tex. App.-
Texarkana 2000, no pet.).  Thus, neither the trial court's fact findings about the legal
meaning and effect of the June 7th letter nor the rules used to assess the validity of those
fact findings bound our decision.
	Accordingly, appellee's motion for rehearing is overruled.
 
							Per Curiam

line">Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.75, 80,
109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App.
2005).  As a result of our review, we agree that the appeal is frivolous.  
	Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.

						Mackey K. Hancock
						         Justice

Do not publish.