Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of July 14, 2008

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

GuideOne Lloyds Ins. Co. v. First Baptist Church of Bedford, No. 02-07-00176-CV (July 17, 2008) (Holman, J., joined by Cayce, C.J., and Walker, J.). [Note: This opinion was withdrawn October 2, 2008.]: Held: The trial court erred by disregarding the effect of the jury's finding that Appellant made an unconditional tender of $155,000 to Appellee on July 7, 2005, because there is some evidence to support the finding. Appellee was entitled to the statutory interest penalty on the full amount of the claim only until July 6, 2005; thereafter and until March 9, 2007, Appellee was entitled to the statutory penalty in an amount representing the difference between the amount of the claim and the $155,000 unconditional tender. The trial court did not err by failing to calculate prejudgment interest on Appellee's breach of contract and article 21.21 awards pursuant to section 302.002 of the finance code, nor did it abuse its discretion by denying Appellant's requested jury charge questions and instructions.

In re J.P.C., No. 02-07-00184-CV (July 17, 2008) (McCoy, J., joined by Livingston, J.; Walker, J., concurs without opinion).: Held: Abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review for a trial court's determination regarding grandparent access and possession under family code section 153.433. Applying such standard, the trial court erred by granting the grandparents' petition for access and possession where the grandparents failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the statutory presumption—that is, that the grandparents failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the denial of access would significantly impair the grandchild's physical health or emotional well-being.