Merely providing a draft judgment to conform to what the court had announced would be its judgment does not result in waiver of appeal of the judgment. John Masek Corp. v. Davis, 848 S.W.2d 170, 174–75 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied); see also In re Bahn, 13 S.W.3d 865, 875 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2000, orig. proceeding) (“A party should not be estopped from challenging a court’s order when the party provides to the court a proposed order following what it believes was the court’s ruling at the hearing, and the court signs it.”); Glattly v Air Starter Compenents, Inc., 332 S.W.3d 620, 636–37 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet denied) (holding party did not waive right to complain of judgment where record indicated that party’s proposed judgment was made after several hearings on post-trial motions and was intended to conform to what the trial court had announced as its judgment at those hearings). However, if a party files a motion for judgment on the verdict and does not indicate in some manner that it disagrees with the substance of the verdict, then that party cannot challenge on appeal the judgment it requested. First Nat’l Bank v. Fojtik, 775 S.W.2d 632, 633 (Tex. 1989); Litton Indus. Prod., Inc. v. Gammage, 668 S.W.2d 319, 321–22 (Tex. 1984).

— JoAnn Storey
Have your own piece of procedural arcanum suggestion? Send it to: