Opinion
04-23-00095-CV
08-30-2024
SATURN AVIATION, LLC, Appellant v. BMH AIR, LLC and Evolution Jets, LLC, Appellees
From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas Trial Court No. 15102 The Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding
ORDER
PER CURIAM
On January 30, 2023, Saturn Aviation, LLC filed its notice of appeal in the trial court. On February 15, 2024, the case was set for submission on briefs before a panel of Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, and Justice Liza A. Rodriguez. In it's brief, appellant Saturn Aviation argues the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are ambiguous because they do not distinguish between two agreements in this case: the Sublease and the Amended Sublease. In support of its contention, Appellant refers to the fact that the Findings of Fact and Supplemental Findings of Fact both define the Sublease as "that certain aircraft dry lease under which [Maximum Flight Advantages, LLC d/b/a Evolution Jets] subleased the Aircraft to Saturn effective June 6, 2016." Both sets of findings offer no definition for the Amended Sublease. However, at least one conclusion of law refers to the "New/Amended Sublease." And elsewhere in the findings, the trial court refers to another entity, Evolution Jets, LLC, which was assigned Maximum Flight Advantages' rights under the original Sublease and was a party to the Amended Sublease. However, the findings refer to Evolution agreeing to the terms of the Sublease, and Saturn failing to comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the Sublease. These references to the original Sublease and the Amended Sublease make it unclear as to which sublease the trial court refers in which instance. And we should not make assumptions as a reviewing court.
Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.4(a), "[a] court of appeals must not affirm or reverse a judgment or dismiss an appeal if" the trial court's action "prevent[] the proper presentation of a case to the court of appeals" and "the trial court can correct its action." TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4(A). IF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST, AS THEY DO HERE, "THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO CORRECT THE ERROR. THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL THEN PROCEED AS IF THE ERRONEOUS action or failure to act had not occurred." Id. R. 44.4(b). Here, just as the trial judge was best positioned to evaluate the parties' claims under multiple party agreements during the bench trial, the trial judge is in the best position to clarify these ambiguous factual findings. In the amended Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, the trial court should dispel any confusion about precisely what Sublease-the original Sublease or the Amended Sublease-is being referred to in any given finding of fact or conclusion of law.
Accordingly, we ABATE the appeal, REMAND the case to the trial court, and ORDER the trial court, on or before September 30, 2024, to amend its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to clarify, in each instance, whether it is referring to the original Sublease or the Amended Sublease.
We further ORDER the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk's record containing the trial court's amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on or before October 9, 2024.
We further ORDER this case WITHDRAWN from submission, pending further order of this court. Entered this 30th day of August, 2024. PE