Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Aircraft Network Llc

• Decision Date: 27 May 2011
• Docket Number: No. 05–09–01217–CV.,05–09–01217–CV.
• Citation: 345 S.W.3d 139
• Parties: CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Appellant,v.AIRCRAFT NETWORK, LLC, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

345 S.W.3d 139

CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Appellant,

v.AIRCRAFT NETWORK, LLC, Appellee.

No. 05–09–01217–CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

May 27, 2011.

Fred J. Meier, Christopher S. Kilgore, Carstens & Cahoon, LLP, Robert B. Gilbreath, Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young, LLP, Dallas, for Appellant.J. Robert Arnett II, Munck Carter LLP, Dallas, for Appellee.Before Justices MOSELEY, MARTIN RICHTER, and LANG–MIERS.

OPINION

Opinion By Justice MARTIN RICHTER.

This case was tried, appealed, reversed and remanded in part, tried again on the issue of attorney's fees, and is now before us again on a second appeal. In five issues, Cessna Aircraft Company (“Cessna”) asserts the trial court erred in rendering a “second final judgment,” and claims the judgment is a nullity depriving this court of jurisdiction. Cessna also argues the attorney's fees award is in error because it includes amounts Aircraft Network, LLC (“Aircraft”) incurred proving attorney's fees on remand and because the award includes fees for an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court in which Aircraft did not prevail. Finally, Cessna contends the trial court's judgment erroneously awards Aircraft a double recovery and excessive pre and post-judgment interest. Concluding Cessna's arguments are without merit, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Background

Because the long procedural history of this case is well-known to the parties, we focus only on those facts germane to this appeal. In a suit for damages to a jet aircraft and breach of promises to reimburse costs of a substitute plane, a jury awarded damages to Aircraft on several of its claims against Cessna, including promissory estoppel. Following the verdict, the trial court signed a judgment awarding Aircraft damages for breach of bailment, breach of reimbursement contract, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, pre and post judgment interest, costs, and attorney's fees.

Cessna appealed the trial court's judgment. On appeal, this court reduced the damages awarded for the bailment claim, reversed and rendered the awards for breach of reimbursement contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of warranty, affirmed the award of pre-judgment interest, reformed the judgment by reinstating the damage award for promissory estoppel, and reversed and remanded the attorney's fees award for further proceedings. See Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Aircraft Network, LLC., 213 S.W.3d 455, 469 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied). The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other respects. Id.

Cessna sought review of our decision in the Texas Supreme Court, arguing that this court's reinstatement of the promissory estoppel award resulted in an impermissible double recovery. The petition for review was denied and on June 25, 2008, this court issued its mandate.

On remand, the issue of attorney's fees was tried to a jury. The jury awarded five categories of attorney's fees to Aircraft: (1) for preparation, trial, and appeal of the first case to the court of appeals; (2) for appeal of the first case to the Supreme Court of Texas; (3) for preparation and trial on remand on the issue of attorney's fees; (4) for further appeal to the court of appeals; and (5) for further appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas. Cessna filed two motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, both of which were denied. The trial court then entered a judgment awarding $897,077.50 in attorney's fees and costs to Aircraft, plus additional amounts for subsequent appeals and post-judgment interest. This appeal followed.

Discussion

Jurisdiction and Judgment

In its first issue, Cessna argues we must dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction because the judgment for attorney's fees the trial court entered on remand constitutes a “second final judgment” and is therefore a nullity. Cessna insists the judgment is a nullity because there is nothing in the record to show that it vacates the trial court's “first final judgment.” In the alternative, in its second issue, Cessna argues if the “second final judgment” is not a nullity, the trial court erred in entering it instead of a “single, comprehensive final judgment addressing all claims in the case.” Aircraft responds that the trial court's judgment resolved the only issues remaining in the case and was a proper final judgment over which this court has jurisdiction. We agree with Aircraft.

Because the determination of whether the trial court's judgment on remand was in error overlaps with the analysis of whether the judgment constitutes a “second final judgment” and the overall jurisdictional calculus, we consider Cessna's first two issues in tandem. In so doing, we note at the outset that Cessna correctly states the general rule. That is, when it comes to a final judgment, “there can be only one.” ¹See In re Miller, 299 S.W.3d 179, 183 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.) (stating except when “specifically provided by law,” there may be but one final judgment); Tex.R. Civ. P. 301. But despite Cessna's accurate recitation of the rule, the conclusions Cessna seeks to advance require a distorted application that does not follow from its general premise. The fallacy lies in Cessna's failure to give effect to the metamorphosis a trial court's judgment undergoes following review of that judgment on appeal.

When an appellate court affirms a trial court's judgment or renders the judgment the trial court should have rendered, that judgment becomes the judgment of both courts. See Cook v. Cameron, 733 S.W.2d 137, 139 (Tex.1987) (op. on rehearing); Dallas County v. Sweitzer, 971 S.W.2d 629, 630 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.). After the appellate court's judgment is issued, the clerk issues a mandate. See Tex.R.App. P. 51.1. A mandate issued by the appellate court is a formal command requiring the lower court to comply with the appellate court's judgment. Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dept. v. Dearing, 240 S.W.3d 330, 347 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, pet. denied). Once the opinion and judgment of the appellate court have issued, the trial court loses the power to review, interpret, or enforce its prior judgment. See Medina v. Benkiser, 317 S.W.3d 296, 300 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.). The trial court has no option but to observe and carry out the appellate court's mandate. See Denton County v. Tarrant County, 139 S.W.3d 22, 23 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied).

If a judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court to have “some special judgment rendered by the court below,” the appellate court retains jurisdiction until that particular judgment is entered and the mandate of the appellate court is obeyed. Bramlett v. Phillips, 322 S.W.3d 443, 445–46 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2010, no pet.) (citing Wells v. Littlefield, 62 Tex. 28, 30–31 (1884)). On remand, the filing of the mandate with the trial court vests the trial court with limited jurisdiction, as defined by the parameters of the mandate, to decide those issues specified in the mandate. V–F Petroleum, Inc. v. A.K. Guthrie Operating Co., 792 S.W.2d 508, 510 (Tex.App.-Austin 1990, no writ); see also Jay Petroleum, L.L.C. v. EOG Resources, Inc., 332 S.W.3d 534, 539 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied); Sweitzer, 971 S.W.2d at 630; Martin, 824 S.W.2d at 256. Thus, to the extent the mandate vests the trial court with jurisdiction, albeit limited, to determine issues on remand, the parties retain their right to appeal the trial court's subsequent determinations through the usual and customary process of appeal. Bramlett, 322 S.W.3d at 446; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.220(a) (West Supp. 2010). ²

When an appellate court remands a case with specific instructions, the trial court is limited to complying with the instructions and cannot re-litigate issues controverted at the former trial. Denton County, 139 S.W.3d at 23. The trial court's orders carrying out the mandate are ministerial. See Martin v. Credit Prot. Ass'n Inc., 824 S.W.2d 254, 255–256 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, writ dism'd w.o.j.); Jay Petroleum, 332 S.W.3d at 541. The scope of the mandate is determined with reference to both the appellate court's opinion and the mandate itself. See Truck Ins. Exchange v. Robertson, 89 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, no pet.).

The mandate following our first opinion stated in pertinent part:

We REFORM the trial court's judgment to delete the $166,000.00 award for breach of bailment contract ... We REVERSE the trial court's awards for breach of reimbursement contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of implied warranty, and RENDER judgment that Aircraft Network take nothing on those claims ... We REFORM ... the judgment to reinstate the award of $210, 517.66 for Aircraft Network ... on its promissory estoppel claim. We REVERSE the trial court's award of attorney's fees and costs and REMAND those issues to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this Court's opinion. In all other respects, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment.

Thus, when our judgment issued, the judgment of the trial court became our judgment as to those issues we affirmed and reformed. See Cook, 733 S.W.2d at 139. The trial court was not required to make any further orders as to those issues, and our judgment as to those issues became enforceable “as in other cases.” See Tex.R.App. P. 51.1(b). With regard to those issues on which we reversed the trial court's judgment, the trial court's judgment was nullified, leaving the judgment as to those issues as if it had never been rendered. See In re SSG, 208 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2006, pet. denied) (stating effect of reversal is to nullify judgment); In re Jerry F., 294 S.W.3d 297, 298 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009) (orig. proceeding) (stating once reversed, trial court's judgment is of no force and effect). Therefore, on the issues of attorney's fees and costs, there was no judgment in effect; the parties occupied the same position on these issues as they...