NO. 07-08-0316-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
MARCH 25, 2009
______________________________
LEE JOSEPH REDDIC, SR., APPELLANT
V.
LARRY REDDIC, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 99TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2006-537,398; HONORABLE WILLIAM C. SOWDER, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Â
CONCURRING OPINION
          I join in the Courtâs opinion and write separately simply to point out another reason for affirming the trial courtâs judgment. As the Court states, all of appellant Lee Joseph Reddic, Sr.âs issues on appeal focus on the precept that limitations does not begin to run against a co-tenant until the adverse co-tenant repudiates the co-tenancy. Appellee Larry Reddic cites Republic Production Co. v. Lee, 132 Tex. 254, 121 S.W.2d 973, 978 (Tex. 1938) for the proposition that a recorded conveyance inconsistent with a non-possessing co-tenantâs title, followed by possession, may serve to give the co-tenant the required notice of repudiation. Gossett v. Tidewater Associated Oil Co., 436 S.W.2d 416, 420-21 (Tex.Civ.App.âTyler 1968, writ refâd n.r.e.), which the Court cites, recognizes the same proposition. I believe the trial courtâs judgment can be sustained on the basis of those holdings, apart from the rationale that the property was the sole management community property of Rose Mae Cotton.
Â
James T. Campbell
                                                                                                Justice
N>Id. at 938. The situation before us is akin to that in Quin. Here, as there, appellant failed to explain to the trial court, via evidence or argument, "the distinctions and differences in approach between a neurologist and [psychiatrist] . . . prior to a ruling on the motion. . . ." (4) Id. Nor can we conclude that such differences were so patently apparent that they did not have to be stated. Id. Given this, "we perceive no harm suffered by appellant due to the court's [alleged] refusal to appoint a neurologist." Id.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered below.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
1. John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. tex. gov't
code ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2002).
2. 3. 4.