American Idol, General, LP D/B/A the REO, and Randy Hanson A/K/A Randall Hanson v. Pither Plumbing Co., Inc.
12-14-00134-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 17, 2015Background
- Pither Plumbing provided plumbing services to American Idol General, LP d/b/a The Reo; invoices totaled $17,372.03, which American Idol refused to pay.
- Randall Hanson, a general partner of American Idol, testified favorably for Pither in his deposition but later filed an affidavit contradicting that testimony to defeat summary judgment.
- Pither moved for traditional summary judgment; the trial court granted judgment on breach of contract, sworn account, and quantum meruit for $17,169.48, including attorney’s fees awarded to Pither.
- Hanson’s affidavit contradicted key deposition facts (e.g., American Idol operated The Reo, had a checking account, and that Broers was an employee), creating a potential sham-affidavit issue.
- Appellee objected to Hanson’s affidavit under the sham-affidavit doctrine; the trial court implicitly sustained the objection and disregarded the affidavit.
- On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, held the sham-affidavit doctrine applicable, and addressed damages and attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sham-affidavit suppression of evidence | Pither argues Hanson’s affidavit contradicted deposition without explanation and should be disregarded. | American Idol/Hanson contends the affidavit is admissible contrary to the deposition. | Affirmed summary judgment; sham-affidavit doctrine properly disregarded Hanson’s affidavit. |
| Attorney’s fees award | Pither seeks recovery of its attorney’s fees as proven by the Ward affidavit. | American Idol disputes the amount or entitlement to fees. | Trial court’s attorney’s fees award sustained. |
| Damages accuracy and allocation | Total damages should be $17,372.03; includes a Taco Place charge that must be excluded. | Amounts were appropriately documented; any Taco Place charge should be deducted. | Damages correctly calculated as $17,169.48 after excluding Taco Place charges. |
Key Cases Cited
- First State Bank of Mesquite v. Bellinger & DeWolf, LLP, 342 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.) (abuses of discretion in exclusion of summary-judgment evidence and sham-affidavit considerations)
- Burkett v. Welborn, 42 S.W.3d 282 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, no pet.) (sham-affidavit doctrine cited in evaluating conflicting deposition/affidavit testimony)
- Cantu v. Peacher, 53 S.W.3d 5 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, pet. denied) (limits on changing testimony without explanation; application to summary judgment)
- Frazier v. Yu, 987 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied) (implicit rulings and evidentiary objections in summary-judgment context)
- Randall v. Davis Power & Light Co., 752 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1988) (deposition vs. affidavit conflict; standard for controlling effect of deposition)
- Gaines v. Hamman, 358 S.W.2d 557 (Tex. 1962) (deposition vs. affidavit; conflicting inferences may create a fact issue)