Harry A. Bouknight, Jr. v. Llanelly Enterprises

Summary

The Texas First Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and take-nothing judgment in a dispute over ownership of residential property. The court held that the sole jury question—whether a deed was ineffective to convey the property to Llanelly—did not determine whether Wilmot owned the property, which was the relief sought in Bouknight’s pleadings, and that Bouknight waived the ownership issue by failing to submit it to the jury after Llanelly’s objection.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly granted JNOV because the only jury question—whether the deed was ineffective to convey the property to Llanelly—did not determine whether Wilmot owned the property, which was the ownership issue underlying Bouknight's declaratory-relief claim.
2. Bouknight waived his sole declaratory-judgment claim by failing to request an affirmative jury finding on ownership after Llanelly objected that the submitted question did not ask whether Wilmot owned the property.
3. Bouknight's proposed judgment declaring the deed ineffective, invalid, and of no force or effect did not conform to his pleadings because it did not resolve whether Wilmot owned the property or whether the property was subject to turnover.
4. The court stated that even if Bouknight had requested an ownership finding concerning Wilmot, he would not have been entitled to that relief because Wilmot was not named as a defendant in the declaratory-judgment action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly granted JNOV because the jury's finding that the deed was ineffective to convey the property to Llanelly did not resolve the ownership issue pleaded by Bouknight.
2. Whether Bouknight waived his declaratory-judgment claim by failing to submit a jury question seeking a finding that Wilmot, rather than Llanelly, owned the property after Llanelly objected to the submitted question.
3. Whether the proposed judgment declaring the deed ineffective conformed to Bouknight's pleadings and the jury's verdict.

Disposition

affirmed