MESQUITE ELKS LODGE #2404, Appellant v. MOHAMMAD A. SHAIKH AND RANA MOHAMMAD SHAIKH, Appellees

Supplemental Opinion issued March 22, 2011
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-08-01372-CV
............................
MESQUITE ELKS LODGE #2404, Appellant
V.
MOHAMMAD A. SHAIKH AND RANA MOHAMMAD SHAIKH, Appellees
.............................................................
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 06-07433-B
.............................................................
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING
Before Justices Morris, Bridges, and Murphy
Opinion By Justice Bridges
        In our initial opinion, we sustained appellant's factual sufficiency challenge to the evidence used to support Finding of Fact No. 8 and, therefore, sustained appellant's issue challenging Conclusion of Law No. 4 that Shaikh should recover $23,166.00 in principal damages. Because liability was contested, we could not reverse only on unliquidated damages. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(b); Redman homes, Inc. v. Ivy, 920 S.W.2d 664, 669 (Tex. 1996). Therefore, we reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial.
        Appellee moved for rehearing and requested a voluntary remittitur as follows:
 
(1) $2,443.75 of the judgment principal award of $23,166.00, reducing the principal recovery to $20,722.25, and
 
 
 
(2) $305.50 of the prejudgment interest award of $2895.75, reducing the prejudgment interest recovery to $2590.25.
 
Thus, appellees sought to remit $2,443.75 in principal and $305.50 in prejudgment interest.
        We conclude appellees' voluntary remittitur cures the reversible error, and we accept it. We vacate our judgment, but not our opinion, of October 22, 2010, and we grant appellees' request for voluntary remittitur, deny the remainder of appellees' motion for rehearing, modify the trial court's judgment to reflect the remittitur of $2,443.75 and the $305.50 in prejudgment interest and affirm the trial court's judgment as modified. See Tex. R. App. P. 46.5; Rasmusson v. LBC PetroUnited, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 283, 289 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (reforming and affirming summary judgment in supplemental opinion after voluntary remittitur); Montoya v. Bluebonnet Financial Assets, No. 02-09-00301-CV, 2010 WL 5186787 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth, no pet.) (same).
 
 
                                                          
                                                          DAVID L. BRIDGES
                                                          JUSTICE
 
081372SF.P05