Alice Ruth Peters, Independent for the Estate of Jo Alice Stout v. Jerry Bob Young and Wife, Karen Elaine Young
11-14-00120-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 8, 2015Background
- In Sept. 2001 the Stouts (owners of an undivided interest) granted the Youngs an option to purchase contingent on partitioning the land; the option stated it was "for an indefinite term" and would continue for six months after actual receipt of a certified final judgment or partition deed.
- Between 2002 and 2004 the Youngs repeatedly refused to waive the partition condition precedent.
- In Aug. 2009, after notice that the land would not be partitioned, the Youngs exercised the option to buy the Stouts' undivided interest; the Stouts refused to perform.
- The Youngs sued for specific performance; Jo Alice Stout moved for summary judgment arguing the option was void under the Rule Against Perpetuities; the trial court denied the motion and tried the case on the merits.
- A jury found the Stouts failed to comply with the option; the trial court entered judgment ordering specific performance and awarded attorney’s fees to the Youngs.
- The Stouts appealed. Jo Alice argued the option violated the Rule Against Perpetuities and challenged denial of summary judgment; Jack L. Stout raised sufficiency challenges to the jury findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Jo Alice Stout's summary judgment on RAP was reviewable | Jo Alice: summary judgment should have been granted; option void under Rule Against Perpetuities | Youngs: trial on merits followed, so denial not independently reviewable | Denial not reviewable on appeal where trial on merits followed; issue overruled (Cincinnati Life Ins. Co.) |
| Whether the option violates the Rule Against Perpetuities (Jo Alice) | Jo Alice: option is void under RAP | Youngs: contested; the trial court made no adverse RAP ruling and case proceeded to jury | RAP challenge not preserved; Jo Alice waived issue by failing to obtain an adverse ruling or otherwise preserve for appeal |
| Whether evidence legally insufficient to support jury findings (Jack L. Stout) | Stout: no evidence supports jury findings (labels multiple attacks) | Youngs: evidence supported findings; preservation required | Waived—Stout failed to preserve no-evidence complaint via directed verdict, objection, JNOV, or new trial |
| Whether evidence factually insufficient to support jury findings (Jack L. Stout) | Stout: factual insufficiency of the evidence | Youngs: factual sufficiency not preserved | Waived—Stout did not raise factual-sufficiency claim in motion for new trial; issues overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1996) (denial of summary judgment not reviewable when trial on merits follows)
- Superior Broad. Prods. v. Doud Media Grp., L.L.C., 392 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2012) (no jurisdiction to review denial of summary judgment after trial on merits)
- Ackermann v. Vordenbaum, 403 S.W.2d 362 (Tex. 1966) (procedure on review when trial follows summary judgment denial)
- Cecil v. Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. 1991) (methods to preserve legal-sufficiency complaints after jury trial)
- Aero Energy, Inc. v. Circle C Drilling Co., 699 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. 1985) (preservation rules for sufficiency issues)
- Arroyo Shrimp Farm, Inc. v. Hung Shrimp Farm, Inc., 927 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996) (factual-sufficiency complaints must be raised in motion for new trial)