Alejandro Hernandez and Edith Roman v. Enrique Gallardo, 458 S.W.3d 544

Roman owned a home foreclosed in 2005; Gallardo purchased it at foreclosure and allowed Roman to remain as a tenant; Hernandez moved in with Roman in 2006.
The property suffered flood damage in 2006; disputes over repairs followed.
A written lease (July 1–Sept 30, 2008) listed Roman as lessee (Hernandez not listed); rent $800/mo; September 2008 rent went unpaid.
Gallardo gave notices: Sept 9, 2008 (lease not renewed; requested rent) and Sept 11, 2008 (vacate by Oct 11 for nonpayment). Tenants were evicted Jan 2009.
Tenants sued for breach of contract (repairs, security devices, wrongful termination), retaliatory eviction, and promissory estoppel (promise to sell back). Trial court initially denied summary judgment, later granted defendant’s no-evidence motion after rehearing. Appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Collateral estoppel bars rehearing	Initial denial of summary judgment is binding; relitigation barred	Interlocutory denial is not a final judgment; court may reconsider pre-final judgment	Denied: interlocutory order not final; rehearing permissible
Breach for failure to repair (Tex. Prop. Code §92.052)	Gallardo failed to repair mold/other hazards as required	Tenants failed to prove notice, non-delinquency at notice, or that condition impacted health/safety	Denied: no competent evidence on required statutory elements
Breach for failure to provide/repair security devices (§§92.153, 92.158)	Gallardo failed to change locks/provide keys	Even if locks not changed, Tenants presented no evidence of damages or pursued statutory remedies	Denied: no evidence of damages or proper statutory remedy use
Retaliatory eviction (§92.331)	Eviction was in retaliation for requests/complaints about repairs	Tenants were delinquent in rent when notice to vacate filed; delinquency negates retaliation claim under §92.332(b)	Denied: Tenants delinquent; eviction not unlawful retaliation
Promissory estoppel (promise to sell back)	Gallardo promised to sell house back; Tenants relied to their detriment	No evidence Tenants materially changed position or suffered detriment because of the promise	Denied: no more than scintilla of evidence of detrimental reliance

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Petta, 44 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. 2001) (collateral estoppel requires an actually litigated, essential, identical issue and a final judgment)
Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. 1993) (trial court may reconsider interlocutory rulings before final judgment)
King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (no-evidence summary judgment reviewed under legal sufficiency / directed verdict standard)
Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (standards for evaluating more-than-a-scintilla evidence)
Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. 1983) (definition of scintilla vs. more-than-scintilla evidence)
Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Vaughan, 792 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. 1990) (preservation rule: hearsay objections must be ruled on to be preserved)