First Nat. Bank of Beeville v. Fojtik
| Decision Date | 28 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. C-7833,C-7833 |
| Citation | 775 S.W.2d 632 |
| Parties | FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BEEVILLE, Jack Chesnut and Bevans Welder, Petitioners, v. Felix FOJTIK and Cecelia Fojtik, Individually and d/b/a Fojtik Auction & Equipment Company, Fojtik Farms, Fojtik Ranch Company, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Tamara Tejml Cuthrell, Frank E. Weathered, Corpus Christi, Marion E. Williams, Jr., Beeville, Ronald B. Brin, Corpus Christi, for petitioners.
James H. Robichaux, Corpus Christi, for respondents.
Felix and Cecelia Fojtik brought suit against First National Bank of Beeville and two of its directors, Bevans Welder and Jack Chesnut, for breach of contract, conversion, tortious interference, fraud, conspiracy and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices--Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §§ 17.41--.63 (Vernon 1987). The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Fojtiks against First National Bank for breach of contract, violations of the DTPA and fraud, but not for tortious interference or conversion. The jury, however, answered all damage issues with findings of zero damages. We agree with the court of appeals that this cause should be reversed and remanded for a new trial. 752 S.W.2d 669 (1988).
In the trial court, Fojtik filed a motion for judgment which stated:
While Plaintiffs disagree with the findings of the jury and feel there is a fatal defect which will support a new trial, in the event the Court is not inclined to grant a new trial prior to the entry of judgment, Plaintiffs pray the Court enter the following judgment. Plaintiffs agree only as to the form of the judgment but disagree and should not be construed as concurring with the content and result.
In the court of appeals, Fojtik asserted that the jury's findings of zero damages were against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence and fatally conflicted with the findings on liability and causation. We do not agree with the portion of the opinion of that court which states that Fojtik may not complain that the evidence fails to support the jury's findings on damages. There must be a method by which a party who desires to initiate the appellate process may move the trial court to render judgment without being bound by its terms. Fojtik's reservation of the right to complain in the instant case was an appropriate exercise of such a right and is distinguishable from the attempted reservation in Litton Industrial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GXG, Inc. v. Texacal Oil & Gas
...First Nat. Bank of Beeville, 752 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1988) (witness quoted speaker), writ denied per curiam, 775 S.W.2d 632 (Tex.1989). Dougherty only states his personal belief, formed as a result of what O'Connor "indicated." Without knowing what O'Connor said, the a......
-
Bradford v. Vento
...conspire together, citing Fojtik v. First Nat'l Bank, 752 S.W.2d 669, 673 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1988), writ denied per curiam, 775 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. 1989). All parties concede that Bradford was the agent of Simon and Golden. Appellees argue, however, that there is no evidence to show th......
-
Texas Commerce Bank Reagan Through Texas Commerce Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Lebco Constructors, Inc.
...to an alternative argument concerning the form of that judgment if the court is not inclined to grant new trial. See First National Bank v. Fojtik, 775 S.W.2d 632 (Tex.1989); Melissinos v. Phamanivong, 823 S.W.2d 339, 342 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1991, writ denied); Transmission Exchange Inc. v......
-
Texas-Ohio Gas v. Mecom
...in the corporate action." Fojtik v. First Nat'l Bank of Beeville, 752 S.W.2d 669, 673 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1988), writ denied, 775 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. 1989). However, in Fojtik, the court ultimately held that a corporate agent can conspire with its corporation if the agent is not acting i......