From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allright Inc. v. Pearson

Supreme Court of Texas
Sep 23, 1987
735 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1987)

Summary

holding that, because the plaintiff did not complain to the trial court of its failure to award prejudgment interest and did not assign a point of error on appeal to the issue, she failed to preserve complaint for appellate review

Summary of this case from Dowtech Specialty Contractors, Inc. v. City of Weinert

Opinion

No. C-5470.

May 13, 1987. Rehearing Denied September 23, 1987.

Appeal from the 151st District Court, Harris County, Anthony J.P. Farris, J.

George Bishop, Houston, for petitioner.

Randy Schaffer, Houston, for respondent.


Carolyn Pearson sued Allright, Inc., the operator of the Rice Rittenhouse parking garage for negligence. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Pearson based on the jury's verdict. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment and upon Pearson's motion, reformed the judgment to include prejudgment interest relying on Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, 696 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1985). 711 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1986). We grant Allright's application for writ of error and without hearing oral arguments, reverse the court of appeals' award of prejudgment interest. Tex.R.App.P. 133(b). We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in all other respects.

The prejudgment interest rule in Cavnar is applicable to all future cases as well as those still in the judicial process. However, this court did not modify the procedural rules nor did we dispense with the requirement of preserving errors. Pearson did not complain to the trial court of its failure to award prejudgment interest nor did she assign a point of error or crosspoint in the court of appeals on this issue. Pearson waived any claim for prejudgment interest by failing to preserve her point of error on appeal. See Washington v. Walker County, 708 S.W.2d 493, 497 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

A point of error not preserved, is not before the appellate court for review. Tex.R.App.P. 52(c). It is error for a court of appeals to consider unassigned points of error. American General Fire Casualty Co. v. Weinberg, 639 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. 1982). See also Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Brown, 613 S.W.2d 521, 522 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1981, writ ref'd. n.r.e.) Therefore, the court of appeals' action of reforming the judgment to include prejudgment interest without a point of error or crosspoint was erroneous. Accordingly, a majority of the court reverses that part of the court of appeals' judgment awarding prejudgment interest and otherwise affirms the judgment of the court of appeals in all respects.


Summaries of

Allright Inc. v. Pearson

Supreme Court of Texas
Sep 23, 1987
735 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1987)

holding that, because the plaintiff did not complain to the trial court of its failure to award prejudgment interest and did not assign a point of error on appeal to the issue, she failed to preserve complaint for appellate review

Summary of this case from Dowtech Specialty Contractors, Inc. v. City of Weinert

holding that the plaintiff "waived any claim for prejudgment interest by failing to preserve her point of error on appeal"

Summary of this case from JSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant v. United Res., LP

holding appellate court erred by considering unassigned points of error

Summary of this case from Dueitt v. Dueitt

holding that error regarding award of pre-judgment interest must be preserved

Summary of this case from Keith v. Keith

holding appellate court erred by considering unassigned points of error

Summary of this case from Moseley v. Behringer

holding that failing to present point or argument waived right to complain of error and that appeals court will err by reversing on that ground in absence of properly assigned error

Summary of this case from G.W. McKinzie v. Raytheon App.

holding that it was error for court of appeals to consider unassigned points of error

Summary of this case from Fort Bend Indep. S.D. v. Rivera

holding it was error for court of appeals to consider unassigned points of error where intermediate appellate court had affirmed and reformed trial court judgment for appellee to include prejudgment interest, without a point of error or crosspoint on this issue

Summary of this case from Kenneth Leventhal v. Reeves

affirming finding of liability where insufficient security permitted robbery to occur on premises

Summary of this case from San Antonio St. Hosp. v. Koehler

stating that error in prejudgment interest must be preserved

Summary of this case from United Fire Lloyds v. JD Kunz Concrete Contractor, Inc.

stating that error in prejudgment interest must be preserved

Summary of this case from 1st & Trinity Super Majority, LLC v. Milligan

stating that error regarding prejudgment interested must be preserved

Summary of this case from Meek v. Onstad
Case details for

Allright Inc. v. Pearson

Case Details

Full title:ALLRIGHT, INC., Petitioner, v. Carolyn PEARSON, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Sep 23, 1987

Citations

735 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1987)

Citing Cases

G.W. McKinzie v. Raytheon App.

On appeal, McKinzie has not complained of the trial court's rendering summary judgment concerning the…

Gonzalez v. Gonzalez

A claim must have been asserted in the trial court in order to be raised on appeal. Dreyer v. Greene, 871…