Roberson v. Robinson
Charles E. ROBERSON and Roberson’s Funeral Home, Inc., Petitioners, v. Raymond ROBINSON, Respondent
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Raymond Robinson, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Etta Moyer, filed this suit for rents against Charles E. Roberson and Roberson’s Funeral Home, Inc. (“Roberson”). After a nonjury trial, the trial court rendered judgment against Roberson. The court of appeals reformed the trial court’s judgment in part and affirmed. 761 S.W.2d 51 . We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
Roberson brought forth a statement of facts on appeal, but did not request the trial court to make any findings of fact or conclusions of law. In the court of appeals, Roberson challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s judgment. In purporting to resolve these points, the court of appeals stated:
In determining if there is any evidence to support the judgment and implied findings of fact, we can consider only the evidence favorable to the implied findings and disregard any contrary evidence.
761 S.W.2d at 53 . The court then proceeded to consider only that evidence favorable to the trial court’s judgment.
In a nonjury trial, where no findings of fact or conclusions of law are filed or requested, it is implied that the trial court made all the necessary findings to support its judgment.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Jefferson Constr. Co., 565 S.W.2d 916, 918 (Tex.1978);
Buchanan v. Byrd, 519 S.W.2d 841, 842 (Tex.1975). When a statement of facts is brought forward, these implied findings may be challenged by factual sufficiency and legal sufficiency points the same as jury findings or a trial court’s findings of fact.
Burnett v. Motyka, 610 S.W.2d 735, 736 (Tex.1980);
see also Seaman v. Seaman, 425 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Tex.1968);
Bishop v. Bishop, 359 S.W.2d 869, 872 (Tex.1962).
In this case, it is clear that the court of appeals, in applying only a no evidence standard of review, failed to consider and weigh all of the evidence, thereby failing to properly rule on Roberson’s factual sufficiency points. We conclude that this cause therefore must be remanded to that court for consideration of these points.
Burnett v. Motyka, 610 S.W.2d at 736 .
Pursuant to Rule 133(b), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we grant Roberson’s motion for rehearing, grant the application for writ of error and, without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands the cause to that court for consideration of Roberson’s factual sufficiency points.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 14 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that when appellate record includes reporter's and clerk's records, implied findings of fact are not conclusive and may be challenged for legal sufficiency)
-
(holding that, when reporter’s record is filed, trial court’s findings may be challenged on both legal and factual sufficiency grounds)
-
(holding that we conduct our review of sufficiency challenges to implied findings under the same standards of review that govern sufficiency challenges to jury findings or the trial court’s findings of fact)
-
(holding that, in the absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court is presumed to have found the necessary facts in support of its judgment if there is any probative evidence to support such findings)
-
(implying that the trial court made all necessary findings to support its judgment when no findings or conclusions are filed)
-
(statement of facts—now called the reporter's record—is necessary to challenge implied findings on evidentiary grounds after a non-jury trial)
-
(appellate court implies all necessary findings in support of the judgment)
-
(referring to the "statement of facts")
Cited by 513 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Omodele, Boluwaji v. Adams, Mopelola
- BMC Software Belgium, NV v. Marchand
- in the Interest of S.F., a Child
- In re SF
- David H. Quinn and Hui Yueh Quinn v. Gregory D. Harris, Laura K. Harris, Marc A. Padovani Gail M. Padovani And Southland Oaks Municipal Utility District
- A.P. McMaster, Steve Richtman and Sun Glo Juices v. Richard Davidson and Southwest Juice Associates
Most recent
- Julia Ann Poff v. William Harvey Poff
- Jose Luis Martinez Lara v. San Juanita Medina
- Johannes B. Massar v. Pegasus Pain Management, PLLC
- Hubert "Bud" Kott v. Brian T. Miller and MK Developers L.C.
- the Marriage of Frances Gillian Thatcher and Nicolas Lee Thatcher v. the State of Texas
- Pdt Holdings, Inc., and Phillip Thompson Homes, Inc. D/B/A Phillip Thompson Custom Homes v. City of Dallas and the Board of Adjustment of the City of Dallas
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.