*1 wife and another individual appellant’s
рoint appel- out that all contradicted Thus, likely five was it more
lant.
people lying were or that was Finally, appellant’s lawyer was
lying?
well-prepared for cross-examination witnesses, able to raise some
both and was credibility, at least
questions about their innocent. appear
make them less testimony may helped
Clearly, the decision, make offenses jury its innately inflammatory that the
were not so
jury not have been able to consider would objective light. Unquestion- in an
them charged inflam-
ably, the offense was more of-
matory than either of extraneous unlikely jury find it thаt the
fenses. We short, sight charged
lost offense. In
the trial court did not abuse its discretion finding prejudicial that the effect of the outweigh probative
evidence did not its appellant’s
value. overrule second and We
third issues. affirm
court. TELLO, Appellant
Pablo
v. ONE, N.A.; Banc One Texas
BANK Appellees.
Leasing Corp., Houston, Caрasso, Peter William pellant. McDonald, Richardson, for M. George appellees.
Panel consists of Justices EDELMAN, and SEYMORE. *2 OPINION signed by Tello repre- authorized sentativе of Bank One. Just above the WANDA McKEE Justice. representative’s authorized signature the Pablo Tello brings from a following appears: sentence entered him signature The authorized of the Lessor for breach of a lease agreement he execut- below has the effect of: accepting the ed for a truck. all Because of the issues in Lease; terms and conditions of this settled, this cаse are well we issue this acknowledging verification of the Les- opinion. memorandum (see see’s coverage insurance Section Two plaintiffs N.A. and —Bank 14); and assigning right, all title and Banc One Texas Leasing Corp. Tel- —sued Lease, including all lo. The “final judgment” disposed thereunder, any amounts due guaranty plaintiffs —Bank and the Vehicle BANC ONE TEXAS Banc One Leasing Corp. (“Assignee”) LSNG CORP pursuant [the dismissed from the suit and its claims were eight next seven or illegible words are not severed. because the name BANC ONE TEXAS The dissent claims that we do not know typed LSNG CORP is over them] that Bank N.A. and Banc One Texas Agreement. Leasing Corporation are two entities and Thus, a Bank representative execut- merely we are assuming that two ed the Leasing Agreement and simulta- plaintiffs sued Mr. Tello. The dissent neously execution, with that assigned the states that the record treats Bank lease to Banc One Texas Leasing Corpora- N.A. and Banc One Corpo- tion. A single entity would not need to ration as a single entity. disagree. assign to itself a lease agreement Two of the documents—both of which entered into. That would bе a senseless were attached to the motion for summary act. petition directly and the port our conclusion. The Texas Cеrtificate Title leads to leasing agreement was a Bank the same conclusion. It contains the fol- One form. The bottom of that lowing form was information: *3 So, may interlocutory lists appeals title Banc One Texas Leas- certain hear ing Corporation as of cases. See types the owner the truck of Tex. PRAC.& Civ. Rem. and Bank (stating § One Texas N.A. that in a civil first Code 51.02 ease $100, A company may involving party would not more than a a own track and also be a on final or appeal judgment lienholder a from a district truck. supports county This also to appeals); the conclusion court the court of see they that also Tex. Civ. are two separate companies. Prac. & Rem.Code 51.014(a)(1) (10) § (listing types Whether Bank N.A. and Banc interlocutory appeal may cases in which are, Leasing Corporation or brought). be is not one of those This were, two entities and not one important is cases. jurisdictional a judg reasons. When may It that and Banc be Bank N.A. disposes ment of only plain one of several Corporation are One now tiffs, it is interlocutоry. v. Har Lehmann has company, merged one that one into the (Tex.2001) Corp., Con 191, 39 S.W.3d happened, other. If that has evidence (concluding that there when prove must to the to presented judge be merits, conventional trial on the an order For, company. that аre now one as it or is not final for purposes stands, proving now the same documents appeal actually disposes it unless prove transaction also pending party claim and or it unless clear Leasing Corpo- Banc One ly unequivocally indicates еntity, separate ration are are finally court’s to intent of all parties). claims and all jurisdiction
This court has hear no hear Hаving final appeals judgments, although peal, from dismiss it.1 we that, out, points judicial economy 1. we note also EDELMAN, J., dissenting. dispose of the сlaims of the one plaintiff case, named in as the plain- EDELMAN, Justice, RICHARD H. ly purports to do. dissenting. The record also does not indicatе the majority opinion bases its dismissal type by NA,” of lien held “Bank One Texas of this on its conclusions that: for what provided indebtedness that lien Banc One Texas Leas- security, what or whose inter- ing Corporation” plaintiffs, was two rather ests) it might have been enforceable. one; and, thus, than the trial court’s Therefore, the record does not reflect that (the “judgment”) favor of only *4 any entity besides the lessor thе vehicle “Bank N.A.” lacked finality failing (and presumably single plaintiff named of the claims of Banc One Texas action) brought would have hаd Leasing Corporation. disagree I with standing to assert claim Tello each conclusion. vehicle, with regard to the leased such that every pleading and motion in filed subject trial court would have had this case appeal, and brief filed on matter to enter the single there is but a plaintiff appellee, and (as in any entity majori- favor of other One, N.A.; “Bank Bank One Texas Leas- occurrеd). ty assumes to have Under ing Corporation Corp.]” always [or that is circumstances, these the decision of the referred to in singular оften shortened majority that favor of “Bank N.A.” “Bank N.A.” to dispose failed On the certificate of title to the leased claims of a рlaintiff sup- second is not vehicle, “Banc Lsng. Corp. One Texas in ported by record, and the resulting owner, Pablo Tello” is shown as the C/O dismissal will sеrve to needlessly de- and “Bank One NA” is shown as the lay the final resolution of this ease. However, nothing in the rec- ord indicates whether: “Bank One Tex- NA”; (2) One, NA”; “Bank Leasing Corporation; One, N.A.;
“Bank Bank One Texas Leas-
ing two, three, Corporation,” are or four In that “Bank Corporation” has K.J.M., In the Interest оf
brought this action as a plaintiff, a Minor Child. special exception, and no pleading, verified challenge other has been аsserted to its capacity to sue in that name a single (and I party, can see no authority or basis reason) certainly no for this сourt to sua
sponte conclude that it could not do so or so, doing or that the name,
favor of the commonly shortened N.A.” could not or did not offsets, proved payments, as a matter of law that all that all credits later, offsets have been made. applied, yet The affidavit in the same affidavit port of Bank One's states states that all offsets have been made.