Adel Khechana v. Mohamed El-Wakil, 661 S.W.3d 425

Background

In March–September 2019, plaintiff Mohamed el‑Wakil paid a total of $11,233 for a 2014 Nissan Rogue (including an initial $1,500 down payment, $6,233 under a lease agreement, and $3,500 at sale).
Seller Adel Khechana (Casba, LLC / pplcars.com) signed a written "as is" sales contract; the settlement figures in that contract did not match the actual payments and included a fictitious trade‑in.
Texas DMV placed a hold on el‑Wakil’s title application after the former owner, Ali, disputed the transfer as possibly fraudulent; Khechana requested review and the hold persisted until the DMV issued title to el‑Wakil on January 30, 2021.
El‑Wakil sued Khechana and Casba for DTPA violations, breach of contract, and fraud; at a nonjury trial six weeks after the DMV issued title the trial court awarded el‑Wakil $11,233 and attorney’s fees but did not order return of the car; default judgment against Casba later became a nonsuit.
Khechana timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of law (none were issued); on appeal he argued mootness, sought remand for findings, and challenged legal and factual sufficiency of evidence (causation and damages).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of the case after DMV issued title	Issuance of title did not moot case because plaintiff could still seek relief for alleged wrongful delay and other claims	Case was moot once clear title issued because relief could no longer affect parties' rights	Court: Not moot; issuance of title did not necessarily deprive trial court of jurisdiction because plaintiff might still prove causation/damage linked to delay or other claims
Trial court’s failure to file requested findings and conclusions	Findings not necessary to review judgment	Failure to issue findings was error after timely request	Court: Trial court erred in failing to issue findings, but appellate court first addressed other points that could afford greater relief (rendition)
Legal sufficiency: causation that defendant caused DMV delay	El‑Wakil argued delay resulted from defendants’ conduct and supported damages	Khechana argued he merely submitted the application and DMV/third‑party complaint by Ali caused the hold; no evidence he caused the delay	Court: Legally insufficient evidence that Khechana caused the delay; he could not unilaterally issue title and record shows DMV hold stemmed from Ali’s allegation
Legal sufficiency: damages from delay and award of $11,233	El‑Wakil sought return of payments and damages for delay	Khechana argued el‑Wakil offered no evidence delay caused economic harm; plaintiff retained and used the vehicle, later sold it, and waited months after DMV resolution before selling	Court: Legally insufficient evidence that el‑Wakil was harmed by the delay; award of $11,233 unsupported; court reversed and rendered judgment that el‑Wakil take nothing

Key Cases Cited

Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (mootness and jurisdiction principles)
Abbott v. Mexican Am. Legis. Caucus, Tex. House of Representatives, 647 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2022) (mootness requires impossibility of granting effectual relief)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal‑sufficiency review standards)
Metro Allied Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Lin, 304 S.W.3d 830 (Tex. 2009) (producing‑cause standard under DTPA)
Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. v. Fayette Cnty., 453 S.W.3d 922 (Tex. 2015) (causation‑in‑fact/producing cause discussion)
Zieba v. Martin, 928 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996) (trial court duty to file requested findings; presumed harmful if absent)
Ad Villarai, LLC v. Chan Il Pak, 519 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. 2017) (remedies when trial court fails to issue findings)
Mead v. Johnson Group, 615 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. 1981) (actual damages as natural, probable, foreseeable consequence in contract actions)