Wallace v. Ramon

Opinion by:

SARAH B. DUNCAN, Justice.

Holden Wallace and Holden Wallace, Inc. contend there is legally and factually *503insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s post-answer default judgment. We agree that there is legally insufficient evidence to support the judgment against Holden Wallace individually and therefore reverse this aspect of the trial court’s judgment and render judgment in his favor. We further agree that the trial court erred in awarding interest at ten, rather than six percent and therefore reform the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest. In all other respects,…