the sellers introduced into evidence (1) a copy of the title company’s escrow receipt showing $13,500.00 was deposited into the escrow account, and (2) a copy of a check written by Paul Segal to the title company for $13,500.00. However, according to the earnest money contracts, the sum total of the earnest money required to be deposited by the sellers in accordance with the five contracts was $12,500.00. Even if we liberally construe the sellers’ arguments as challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the trial court’s finding of fact number four, because there is record evidence to support the$12,-500.00 amount found by the trial court, the finding is legally and factually sufficient, and we are bound by this finding. See McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 111 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex.1986) (<HOLDING>). J. HARVEY HUDSON, Justice, dissenting. I do
holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case recognizing that the findings of the circuit court on factual issues arising on a motion to quash service of process for lack of jurisdiction are binding on the appellate court unless wholly unsupported by the evidence or controlled by error of law holding that unless an affirmative defense is established as matter of law defendant bears burden of obtaining jury findings necessary to support defense holding that findings of fact are conclusive if supported by clear and convincing competent evidence even where the evidence might support contrary findings holding unchallenged findings of fact are binding on an appellate court unless the contrary is established as a matter of law or there is no evidence to support the finding