Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In its July 10, 2026 opinion and judgment, the Third Court of Appeals concluded that sufficient evidence supported only $2,385.08 of the trial court’s $20,714.17 award to David James Martin. The court therefore suggested a remittitur of $18,329.09 under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 46.3.
The court conditionally reformed the judgment and gave Martin 30 days to file the remittitur. It stated that timely filing would result in reformation and affirmance consistent with the reduced award, while failure to file would require reversal. Martin did not file the remittitur.
The Court’s Holding
On rehearing and on its own motion, the court held that Rule 46.3 required it to reverse the affected portion of the judgment because Martin had not timely accepted the suggested remittitur. The court withdrew its July 10, 2026 judgment and issued a replacement judgment.
The court further held that the new trial could not be limited to unliquidated damages because The Seely Group contested liability. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.1(b), the court therefore remanded both liability and damages for a new trial. The replacement judgment reversed and rendered in part and reversed and remanded in part.
Key Takeaways
- A party’s failure to timely file a suggested remittitur requires reversal of the affected judgment under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 46.3.
- When liability is contested, an appellate court may not order a separate new trial solely on unliquidated damages.
- The court withdrew its earlier judgment and remanded both liability and damages for retrial.
Why It Matters
The decision highlights the consequences of declining or failing to timely accept an appellate remittitur. Where liability remains disputed, rejection of a reduced damages award can reopen not only the amount of damages but also the underlying question of liability at a new trial.