Springs Window Fashions Divisions, Inc. Springs Window Fashions, L.P. And SWF, Inc. D/B/A SC-SWF, Inc. v. the Blind Maker, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Springs Window Fashions Divisions, Inc. Springs Window Fashions, L.P. And SWF, Inc. D/B/A SC-SWF, Inc. v. the Blind Maker, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 20, 2006·No. 03-03-00376-CV·Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

444444444444444444444444444 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

444444444444444444444444444

NO. 03-03-00376-CV

Springs Window Fashions Division, Inc.; Springs Window Fashions, L.P.; and SWF, Inc. d/b/a SC-SWF, Inc., Appellants

v.

The Blind Maker, Inc., Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN002888, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

On May 29, 2003, the district court entered judgment on a jury verdict against appellants (collectively, Springs Windows), awarding appellee, The Blind Maker, Inc., $5,167,240 in actual damages and $2,090,000 in exemplary damages. On January 20, 2006, we issued an opinion holding that, while there is legally and factually sufficient evidence that Springs committed fraud against Blind Maker, the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the full amount of actual damages the jury awarded. In particular, we concluded that there is sufficient evidence only that Blind Maker incurred $1,270,952 in lost-profits damages. Subtracting $1,270,952

from the jury’s award of $5,167,240 in actual damages reveals a difference of $3,896,288. Accordingly, we suggested a remittitur in the amount of $3,896,288. See Tex. R. App. P. 46.3. We then affirmed the jury’s exemplary damages award, and we overruled Springs’s argument concerning the appropriate post-judgment interest rate.

Blind Maker has informed this Court that it has filed a remittitur of $3,896,288 with the clerk of the district court. In accordance with our January 20, 2006 opinion, we reform the actual damages portion of the judgment of the district court to award Blind Maker $1,270,952 in actual damages instead of the original $5,167,240. In addition, we reform the pre-judgment interest portion of the judgment to state that pre-judgment interest shall be calculated at 10% per year on $1,270,952, with accrual beginning on September 29, 2000. We affirm the judgment of the district court as reformed.

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton Reformed on Remittitur and, as Reformed, Affirmed Filed: April 20, 2006

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

444444444444444444444444444 ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

444444444444444444444444444

NO. 03-03-00376-CV

Springs Window Fashions Division, Inc.; Springs Window Fashions, L.P.; and SWF, Inc. d/b/a SC-SWF, Inc., Appellants

v.

The Blind Maker, Inc., Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN002888, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

On May 29, 2003, the district court entered judgment on a jury verdict against appellants (collectively, Springs Windows), awarding appellee, The Blind Maker, Inc., $5,167,240 in actual damages and $2,090,000 in exemplary damages. On January 20, 2006, we issued an opinion holding that, while there is legally and factually sufficient evidence that Springs committed fraud against Blind Maker, the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the full amount of actual damages the jury awarded. In particular, we concluded that there is sufficient evidence only that Blind Maker incurred $1,270,952 in lost-profits damages. Subtracting $1,270,952

from the jury’s award of $5,167,240 in actual damages reveals a difference of $3,896,288. Accordingly, we suggested a remittitur in the amount of $3,896,288. See Tex. R. App. P. 46.3. We then affirmed the jury’s exemplary damages award, and we overruled Springs’s argument concerning the appropriate post-judgment interest rate.

Blind Maker has informed this Court that it has filed a remittitur of $3,896,288 with the clerk of the district court. In accordance with our January 20, 2006 opinion, we reform the actual damages portion of the judgment of the district court to award Blind Maker $1,270,952 in actual damages instead of the original $5,167,240. In addition, we reform the pre-judgment interest portion of the judgment to state that pre-judgment interest shall be calculated at 10% per year on $1,270,952, with accrual beginning on September 29, 2000. We affirm the judgment of the district court as reformed.

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton Reformed on Remittitur and, as Reformed, Affirmed Filed: April 20, 2006

Springs Window Fashions Divisions, Inc. Springs Window Fashions, L.P. And SWF, Inc. D/B/A SC-SWF, Inc. v. the Blind Maker, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Springs Window Fashions Divisions, Inc. Springs Window Fashions, L.P. And SWF, Inc. D/B/A SC-SWF, Inc. v. the Blind Maker, Inc. (Springs Window Fashions Divisions, Inc. Springs Window Fashions, L.P. And SWF, Inc. D/B/A SC-SWF, Inc. v. the Blind Maker, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.