Court Opinion

ID: 9642262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:53:12.856996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:45.304345
License: Public Domain

HUGHES, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and would overrule Dhanani’s point of error and all of its four subpoints.
We are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment. Hartwell’s Office World v. Systex Corp., 598 S.W.2d 636 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
Where, as here, no findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed, we are required to uphold the judgment on any legal theory supported by the evidence. Seaman v. Seaman, 425 S.W.2d 339 (Tex.1968).
The notes in the instant case contain express waivers of demand for payment, presentment for payment, presentment for acceleration of maturity and protest. On this waiver rests the ruling of the trial court and my vote to affirm such ruling. Valley v. Patterson, 614 S.W.2d 867 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1981); Sylvester v. Watkins, 538 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1976, writ ref’d. n.r.e.); Grella v. Berry, 647 S.W.2d 15 (Tex.App., 1982).
I would hold that the express waivers in the notes, coupled with the notice of acceleration given on June 22, 1982 and the “foreclosure threats” made by Burkett to Cohen before January 25, 1982, support the order of the trial court in refusing to grant the temporary injunction.
I would affirm.
JORDAN, J., concurs.