suit initiated by those who did not want development upon the parcel of land and 2) opportunity to “tender the final earnest money before” repudiating the contract. Because Sai Thong failed in this regard, the trial court determined that “... Limestone’s request for equitable relief should be granted and Sai Thong must return ... the last earnest money payment in the amount of $25,000.” So, while the trial court referred to the $25,000 sum as “damages,” it is clear that it was merely ordering the return of the earnest money that had been paid. Furthermore, and upon our reading of the judgment as a whole, we conclude that the trial court so ordered it because Sai Thong too breached the agreement. See Stettner Clinic, Inc. v. Burns, 61 S.W.3d 16, 18-19 (Tex.App.Amarillo 2000, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the trial court implicitly invoked
holding that in connection with a motion to dismiss the court may consider a document not attached to the pleadings where the plaintiffs claim depends on the contents of a document the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint holding that a contract will be read as a whole and the intent of each part will be gathered from a consideration of the whole holding that a judgment is construed like other written documents and that the intent of the court is determined by viewing the document as a whole holding that whether error is apparent is determined by reference to the law as of the time the appeal is decided holding legislative intent is determined by reading statute as a whole and interpreting it to give effect to all and not just isolated portions