Brinda Redwine D/B/A Texas Working Dogs v. Brian Peckinpaugh D/B/A Monster Malaks/Natural Born Guardians
535 S.W.3d 44
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Redwine, a long‑time Texas livestock guardian dog breeder who runs WorkingDogs.com, posted statements online accusing Peckinpaugh (a Kangal/Turkish Boz dog breeder) of being a "dog fighter," importing unhealthy/unvaccinated dogs, ties to Taliban support, and other misconduct after distancing herself from him.
- Peckinpaugh sued Redwine for defamation in November 2012 seeking actual and exemplary damages; trial was held Sept. 21, 2015.
- The jury found Redwine made seven defamatory statements, found them false, and that she knew or should have known they were false; it awarded actual damages (totaling $295,002), small amounts for mental anguish/future income, $40,000 lost income, and $250,000 exemplary damages.
- The trial court entered judgment including prejudgment interest of $81,750 and postjudgment interest; Redwine appealed raising five issues about decretal language, exemplary damages unanimity, sufficiency of evidence for certain damages, and prejudgment interest calculation.
- The court of appeals: (1) held the judgment contained sufficient decretal language; (2) concluded the jury verdict was not unanimous as to liability and therefore reversed and rendered that Peckinpaugh take nothing on exemplary damages; (3) found Redwine waived sufficiency challenges to reputation and lost‑income awards; and (4) recalculated prejudgment interest, reducing it from $81,750 to $41,846 and modified the judgment accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Peckinpaugh) | Defendant's Argument (Redwine) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Decretal language sufficiency | Judgment language ("ADJUDGED...") is sufficient to be final and enforceable | Judgment lacks necessary decretal phrasing, making it voidable | Court: Judgment language is sufficiently certain and contains proper decretal effect — Overruled Redwine’s issue |
| 2. Exemplary damages — unanimity requirement | Jury verdict (signed) shows award; any signature omission is clerical and curable | Verdict was not unanimous (jury wrote it was not unanimous; 11 of 12 agreed); thus exemplary damages invalid | Court: Nonunanimous verdict as to liability cannot support exemplary damages; reversed and rendered that plaintiff takes nothing on exemplary damages — Sustained in part |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence — reputation damages | Evidence supports reputation harm and future damages | Insufficient evidence to support past/future reputation damages | Court: Redwine failed to preserve legal/factual sufficiency complaints at trial; issue waived — Overruled |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence — lost income | Evidence supports lost income award | Insufficient evidence for past/future lost income | Court: Redwine did not preserve challenge to sufficiency; issue waived — Overruled |
| 5. Prejudgment interest — inclusion and calculation | Prejudgment interest awarded on damages generally; trial court’s figure acceptable | Prejudgment interest cannot be awarded on exemplary or future damages and was miscalculated | Court: Prejudgment interest cannot be on exemplary or future damages; recalculated allowable interest on actual damages to $41,846 and modified judgment — Sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Constance v. Constance, 544 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. 1976) (judgment construed as whole; substance over form)
- Tourtelot v. Booker, 160 S.W. 293 (Tex. Civ. App. 1913) (judgment must show adjudication intrinsically)
- Envtl. Procedures, Inc. v. Guidry, 282 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (discussion of decretal meaning)
- Deatley v. Rodriguez, 246 S.W.3d 848 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (unanimity and preservation standards for exemplary damages)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal sufficiency standard review)
- Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (more than a scintilla standard explained)
- Andres v. Koch, 702 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1986) (juror signature/clerk errors and correction)