Douglas Michael Bulthuis v. Jose Juan Avila
13-13-00717-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 9, 2015Background
- Appellant Douglas Bulthuis appeals a trial court's post-verdict judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) that reduced his recovery to $10.00 after a multi-day jury trial in Hidalgo County.
- The trial court’s JNOV order states it relied on the jury verdict, post‑verdict briefing, exhibits (including excerpts of Bulthuis’s testimony), and counsel’s arguments.
- Appellant contends the trial court based the JNOV on only a “tiny fraction” of the trial record (roughly 20 pages of testimony) rather than the full trial transcript and evidence.
- Appellee acknowledges the trial court reviewed limited excerpts and briefing, and both parties cite Texas no‑evidence/legal‑sufficiency standards applicable to JNOV review.
- Appellant argues that a proper JNOV requires legal‑sufficiency review of the entire record considered by the trial court and that the court erred by failing to consider the full trial record; he asks for reversal and remand to reinstate the jury verdict with prejudgment interest and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may grant JNOV based on only a small portion of the trial record | Bulthuis: No — JNOV requires legal‑sufficiency review based on the evidence the court considered; the court here relied on only excerpts and thus erred | Avila: Concedes limited excerpts were used but argues the excerpts and briefing are what the court considered; cites standard for JNOV review | Not decided by this brief — document is appellant’s reply arguing trial‑court error and requesting reversal/remand; no appellate ruling included in this filing |
| What record is appropriately before the appellate court on appeal from a JNOV | Bulthuis: Appellate review should include the materials the trial court actually considered (verdict, exhibits, briefing); materials not considered by the trial court are irrelevant to the propriety of its JNOV | Avila: Argues the excerpts submitted by appellee were the materials the court relied on and should be the focus of review | Not decided in this document; appellant asserts the appellate record properly contains what the trial court relied on |
| Standard of review for JNOV/no‑evidence challenge | Bulthuis: JNOV requires applying the no‑evidence/legal‑sufficiency test, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and indulging every reasonable inference supporting it | Avila: Agrees on the standard (cites City of Keller, Tanner, Tiller) but emphasizes what the trial court actually considered | Not decided here; both parties agree on the standard but dispute the adequacy of the record the trial court used |
| Relief requested | Bulthuis: Remand with instruction that jury award be reinstated with prejudgment interest and costs | Avila: Opposes relief (implicit in appellee brief) | Appellant requests reversal and remand; no ruling in this brief |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (sets out legal‑sufficiency/no‑evidence standard and how courts must view evidence supporting a verdict)
- Tanner v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 289 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. 2009) (applies no‑evidence standard in post‑verdict/JNOV context)
- Tiller v. McLure, 121 S.W.3d 709 (Tex. 2003) (discusses inferences and standards in reviewing sufficiency of evidence)