Wayne Champagne v. Kenneth D. Smith

No. 04-00-00817-CV

Wayne CHAMPAGNE,

Appellant

v.

Kenneth D. SMITH,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 251113

Honorable Bill C. White, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Sitting: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. López, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 25, 2001

REVERSED AND RENDERED

This is an appeal from a verdict in favor of appellee following a bench trial. We conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court's award of damages in the amount of $2,537.13. Therefore, we reverse and render judgment in appellant's favor.

BACKGROUND

Appellee, Kenneth Smith, sued appellant, Wayne Champagne, for damages arising from the breach of an alleged oral contract. The trial court found that Champagne was indebted to Smith and awarded damages in the amount of $2,537.13. Although Champagne timely filed his request for findings of fact and conclusions of law and his notice of past due findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court did not issue any findings or conclusions. By operation of law, the trial court denied the appellant's timely motion for new trial.

ANALYSIS

Champagne asserts the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to justify the amount of damages awarded to Smith. The record indicates that the trial court did not comply with Champagne's timely requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Further, Champagne properly and timely brought to the attention of the trial court its failure to comply with his request. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 297 (Vernon 2000). Champagne argues that he was harmed by the trial court's failure to comply with his request because no evidence is present in the record to support the trial court's ruling as to the amount of damages. Even if the trial court had entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, we would still sustain Champagne's legal sufficiency challenge.

The reporter's record indicates that the witnesses, Champagne and Smith, did not testify as to the amount claimed to be owed and no exhibits evidencing an amount owed were offered or admitted. After reviewing the record, the amount of damages appears randomly selected by the trial court. Therefore, the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court's judgment.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and judgment is rendered that appellee, Kenneth D. Smith, take nothing on his claims against appellant, Wayne Champagne.

Tom Rickhoff, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH