Gary Romano v. Gary Newton

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-06-00255-CV Gary Romano, Appellant v. Gary Newton, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 335TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 24,929, HONORABLE TERRY L. FLENNIKEN, JUDGE PRESIDING SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION On February 9, 2006, the district court entered a post answer-default judgment against appellant, Gary Romano, awarding appellee, Gary Newton, $176,150.68 in actual damages, $6,216.21 in attorney’s fees, interest and costs. On February 27, 2006, Romano filed a motion for new trial contending that he had inadequate notice of the trial setting and that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment. On April 20, 2006, the district court entered an order overruling Romano’s motion for new trial. On September 6, 2007, we issued an opinion holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Romano’s motion for new trial because there was sufficient evidence to enable the district court to conclude that Romano had received timely notice of the trial setting. We also held that, while there was sufficient evidence to support the judgment as to Newton’s sworn account claim, there was legally insufficient evidence to support a judgment for Newton on his breach of contract, fraud, and quantum meruit claims, and there was no evidence to support Newton’s attorney’s fee award. As the amount of Newton’s sworn account was only $29,544.47, that claim could not support the judgment’s $176,250.68 award. Accordingly, we suggested a remittitur of $146,606.21, the difference between the $176,250.68 awarded in the judgment and the $29,544.47 supported by the evidence. See Tex. R. App. P. 46.3. We then affirmed the district court’s judgment conditioned on Newton’s filing a remittitur of $146,606.21 with the clerk of the district court within thirty days of the date our opinion issued. The thirty day period has since expired and no remittitur has been filed. Therefore, in accordance with our September 6, 2007 opinion, we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand the cause for a new trial on unliquidated damages and attorney’s fees. ________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop Reversed and Remanded Filed: December 7, 2007 2