Narrative Opinion Summary
The case concerns an appeal by two individuals against a judgment from the Travis County District Court in favor of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as the receiver for a bank. Central to the dispute is a property in Travis County, acquired by the appellants in 1983 and subsequently foreclosed by City Federal Savings Bank in 1989. After City Federal's insolvency, the FDIC took over the property and initiated eviction proceedings, leading to the trial court affirming the FDIC's ownership. The appellants raised four points of error, arguing that the FDIC's claims were barred by res judicata and statute of limitations, among other issues. However, the appellate court overruled these points, primarily due to the appellants' failure to provide an adequate record for review. The court noted that without sufficient evidence, it must presume that the trial court's findings are correct. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, awarding costs to the FDIC but not imposing any damages for delay.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Judgment Without Damages for Delaysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment without imposing damages for delay as all points of error were overruled.
Reasoning: Ultimately, all points of error are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed without imposition of damages for delay.
Application of Res Judicata and Statute of Limitationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Claims of res judicata and statute of limitations require adequate evidence and a proper record to be considered on appeal.
Reasoning: The fourth point critiques the trial court's conclusions on res judicata and statute of limitations. Again, the lack of an adequate appellate record leads to a presumption that the omitted evidence supports the trial court's findings.
Burden of Proof and Appellate Recordsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court presumes that omitted evidence from the record supports the trial court's judgment when appellants fail to provide a sufficient record.
Reasoning: The Imberts failed to present sufficient evidence or a proper record, leading the court to presume the omitted evidence supports the trial court's judgment.
Jurisdiction over Denial of Summary Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion for summary judgment without exceptional circumstances.
Reasoning: The first point of error, regarding the denial of the Imberts' motion for summary judgment, is overruled as the court lacks jurisdiction to review such denials without exceptional circumstances.