Teresa Corral-Lerma v. Border Demolition & Environmental Inc., as a Corporation, Raul Solis, Individually and Bonnie Solis, Individually Appeal from 120th District Court of El Paso County (opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS TERESA CORRAL-LERMA, § Appellant, § No. 08-11-00134-CV v. § Appeal from the BORDER DEMOLITION & ENVIRONMENTAL INC., as a corporation, RAUL SOLIS, individually, and BONNIE SOLIS, individually, § 120th District Court § of El Paso County, Texas § (TC# 2009-2631) Appellees. § SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION In our opinion dated May 13, 2015, we suggested a remittitur of $3,033.81 of the attorney’s fees awarded to Appellees for pretrial and trial services. We stated that if the remittitur were filed by Appellees within fifteen days of the date of the opinion, we would modify the judgment with respect to the attorney’s fees award and affirm as modified. See Corral-Lerma v. Border Demolition & Envt’l, Inc., No. 08-11-00134-CV, 2015 WL 2265082, at *9-*11 (Tex.App.--El Paso May 13, 2015, no pet. h.)(not yet published). The Court granted several motions for extension of time to accept remittitur and suspended the remittitur deadline while we entertained motions for rehearing from both Appellant and Appellees, which were denied. Appellees ultimately timely accepted the remittitur on August 18, 2015, and asked the Court to modify the trial court’s judgment consistent with our opinion and judgment in this matter while reserving their right to appeal our remittitur decision under Rose v. Doctors Hosp., 801 S.W.2d 841, 848 (Tex. 1990). Accordingly, we vacate our judgment, but not our opinion, dated May 13, 2015. We reverse the judgment in part and remand Corral-Lerma’s trespass claim for trial. The remainder of the trial court’s judgment is modified to reflect an award of $74,967.19 to Appellees for attorney’s fees related to pre-trial and trial services. As modified, we affirm the remainder of the trial court’s judgment. This Court’s opinion of May 13, 2015, otherwise remains in effect. Appellees’ Motion to Clarify Judgment, Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to file a Response to Appellees’ Motion to Clarify Judgment, and Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to Appellees’ Remittitur are denied. YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice September 2, 2015 Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ. Rivera, J., not participating 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
