[DOWNLOAD] "Point Lookout West v. Robert Whorton" by Supreme Court of Texas No. C-6876 # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Point Lookout West v. Robert Whorton
- Author : Supreme Court of Texas No. C-6876
- Release Date : January 02, 1987
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
Per Curiam Robert Whorton operated a mail-order business from his residence in the Point Lookout West subdivision in San Jacinto
County. The owner's association, Point Lookout West, Inc., brought suit to enjoin Whorton from operating his business, asserting
that Whorton was in violation of deed restrictions limiting the use of the property to residential purposes only. After a
bench trial, the trial court refused to wholly enjoin Whorton from operating his business. However, the trial court ordered
Whorton to no longer ship or receive goods at his residence by means of truck lines or parcel post services. Whorton appealed.
The court of appeals reversed that portion of the trial court's judgment that enjoined Whorton from shipping and receiving
goods at his home, and affirmed the remainder of the judgment. 736 S.W.2d 201. We grant the application for writ of error
of Point Lookout West, Inc., and without hearing oral argument reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the
cause for further consideration. TEX. R. APP. P. 133(b). The court of appeals' judgment conflicts with this court's decision
in Lassiter v. Bliss, 559 S.W.2d 353 (Tex. 1977). Neither party requested findings of fact and conclusions of law. Therefore, all questions of fact should have been presumed
found in support of the judgment, and the judgment affirmed if it could be upheld on any basis. Lassiter, 559 S.W.2d at 358.
The court of appeals correctly recognized that Lassiter set forth the applicable standard of review. Yet, it proceeded to
review the trial court's judgment as if it were wholly favorable to Whorton, disregarding the fact that it was Whorton who
was appealing from a judgment that was in part adverse to him. The conflicting nature of the trial court's judgment evidently
caused some confusion as to which party prevailed at trial. However, the mere fact that a judgment is vague or contradictory
does not authorize an appellate court to deviate from the appropriate standard of review. The conflict or ambiguity must be
resolved, if possible, and the judgment then reviewed under the applicable standard.