Court Opinion

ID: 9676601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:28:29.741703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:49.746469
License: Public Domain

HECHT, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that Evergreen did not move for judgment non obstante veredicto on any claims for unjust enrichment, constructive trust or unconscionability. I also agree that Evergreen cannot obtain judgment n.o.v. on grounds not specifically set out in its motion. And I agree that Evergreen is not entitled to judgment n.o.v. on its fraud claim, the only basis set out in its motion. Consequently, I concur in the result reached by the majority and in much of their reasoning.
I write separately for two reasons. First, I would fortify the majority’s conclusion that judgment n.o.v. cannot be rendered on grounds not raised by motion with some additional authority I regard as persuasive. Second, I do not agree Evergreen has waived its arguments on appeal or failed to comply with rule 324(c), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
First, rule 301, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizes rendition of a judgment n.o.v. only upon motion and reasonable notice, and only if a directed verdict would have been proper:
The judgment of the court shall conform to the pleadings, the nature of the case proved and the verdict, if any, and shall be so framed as to give the party all the relief to which he may be entitled either in law or equity. Provided, that upon motion and reasonable notice the court may render judgment non obstante veredicto if a directed verdict would have been proper....
See Dittberner v. Bell, 558 S.W.2d 527, 531-532 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (motion based solely on argument that plaintiff waived claim by failing to submit all issues to jury is not motion for judgment n.o.v., even though denominated as such, because it does not argue the only grounds for judgment n.o.v., viz, that evidence does not support the verdict). Generally, a motion for directed verdict must state the specific grounds upon which it is based. Rule 268, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. “The object of requiring the grounds to be stated is to inform the opponent and the trial judge of the movant’s contentions and to limit him, as far as possible, to such contentions.” 3 R. McDonald, Texas Civil Practice § 11.30, at 217 (1983). For the same reasons, a motion for judgment n.o.v. should specifically state the grounds upon which it is made, as rule 301 implies.
Second, despite protestations to the contrary, the majority’s conclusion that Evergreen has waived its arguments by failing to assign them as cross-points in violation of rule 324(c), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, is the kind of procedural irregularity upon which reversal cannot be based. See Inpetco, Inc. v. Texas American Bank, 729 S.W.2d 300 (Tex.1987). Although the majority correctly insist that Evergreen cannot thrust upon us the duty to search the record for evidence to support its position, it has not attempted to do so. Evergreen’s contentions are reasonably clear in its brief, clear enough for the majority to dispose of them on the merits. Holding that Evergreen has failed to preserve error in this court adds nothing, and for that reason alone I would avoid it.
ENOCH, C.J., and HOWELL and ROWE, JJ., join in this opinion.