Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

testimony regarding imaginary tax liabilities (discussed below) and had the benefit of
listening to Stewart’s trial testimony regarding SMA’s claims and McCullough’s
damage claims, all of which were completely rejected by the jury. The trial court was in
the best position to decide whether to believe anything Stewart said, and if the trial
court believed anything Stewart said, to decide how much weight to give to his
testimony. Under the standards of review for abuse of discretion and legal and factual
insufficiency of the evidence, the Court should not second guess the trial court’s
decisions on credibility and weight.
(c) Robert McCullough’s testimony. 64
On direct examination, McCullough testified that:
He was advised that it is unlikely that the contract and attorneys’ fees
findings would be reversed on appeal. 65
On cross examination, McCullough testified that:
The McCulloughs have appealed the entire judgment. 66
McCullough does not agree he owes SMA any money. 67
Stewart advised McCullough to file an amended tax return, but
McCullough has not done so. 68
64 McCullough testified on November 29, 2011, in connection with the Motion to Reduce Bond. But, the
trial court also allowed McCullough to testify as to matters related to the bond contest. See RR, Vol. 6 of
6, p. 7.
65 RR, Vol. 6 of 6, p. 8-9.
66 RR, Vol. 6 of 6, p. 73-74.
67 RR, Vol. 6 of 6, p. 73.
68 RR, Vol. 6 of 6, p. 74.
APPELLEES’ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO REVIEW ORDER ON SUPERSEDEAS BOND – Page 18