Court Opinion

ID: 9407771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-09 08:09:25.608322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.018479
License: Public Domain

Reversed and Rendered in Part, Affirmed as Modified in Part, and Majority
Opinion and Concurring and Dissenting Opinion filed July 6, 2023.

                                      In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-22-00433-CV

 BILL WYLY DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND WILLIAM WYLY, Appellants

                                         V.

               ERON SMITH AND HANNA SMITH, Appellees

                    On Appeal from the 212th District Court
                            Galveston County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 14CV1126-A

                   CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

      While I concur in the portion of this court’s judgment affirming the award of
trespass damages, I dissent to the portion of this court’s judgment that reverses the
award of damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress as a matter of law.

      The trial court rendered judgment as follows:

           CAME ON FOR TRIAL ON THE MERITS, and Eron Smith
      and Hanna Smith (“Plaintiffs”) appeared in person and by and through
      their attorney of record Charles B. Kirklin, Kirklin, The Kirklin Law
      Firm, P.C. and Bill Wyly Development. Inc (“Defendant”) and William
      Wyly (“Third Party Defendant”) collectively referred to as
      “Defendants” appeared in person and by and through their attorney of
      record Thomas W. McQuage and a jury was duly impaneled and sworn
      in and the parties each presented their evidence through testimony and
      documentation and each side presented their arguments and the jury
      deliberated and returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs in the
      amount of $32,500.00.
             WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court hereby
             ORDERS, ADJUDGES, AND DECREES that Plaintiffs Eron
      Smith and Hanna Smith have judgment against Defendants William
      Wyly and Bill Wyly Development. Inc for the sum of Thirty Two
      Thousand and five hundred dollars ($32,500.00), plus prejudgment
      interest at the rate of 5% per annum, in the amount of $11,143.37
      (calculated from November 24, 2014) until this Final Judgment is
      signed, plus post judgment interest at the rate of 5% per annum,
      compounded, annually, on the full amount of this Final Judgment until
      paid in full, plus costs of court. This is a final and appealable judgment
      which disposes of all issues and all parties.
             SIGNED AND ENTERED THE 1 DAY OF April, 2022.
      Even were I to agree with the majority’s analysis of William Wyly’s conduct,
the jury: (1) found in its answer to questions 7 and 9 that Bill Wyly Development,
Inc. intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Eron Smith and Hanna Smith
with malice and (2) found in its answer to question 8 that $21,000 would fairly and
reasonably compensate Eron Smith and Hanna Smith for either the conduct of
William Wyly or Bill Wyly Development, Inc., or both. Bill Wyly Development,
Inc. has not argued on appeal that the trial court erred in rendering judgment on the
jury’s answer to questions 7, 8, and 9.

      There is no basis for this court to reverse the judgment for intentional
infliction of emotional distress for both appellants. Bill Wyly Development, Inc. has
waived its argument on appeal, and it is not this court’s place to make such an

                                          2
argument. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). The majority’s opinion is unnecessary on the issue
of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and I therefore decline to join it.
Furthermore, I express no opinion on whether legally sufficient evidence exists to
support an award of damages against William Wyly for intentional infliction of
emotional distress.

                                       /s/       Charles A. Spain
                                                 Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain (Jewell, J.,
majority).

                                             3