Aneita J. Weaver v. John Jamar
383 S.W.3d 805
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Aneita Weaver loaned John Jamar $193,000 to buy and renovate a townhouse with an 8% interest; sale within 2010 was intended for profit.
- The loan included a requirement that improvements be mutually agreed and signed off before funds are spent; Jamar would repay after sale, with Weaver receiving 20% of net profit.
- On sale, Weaver would or could assume title to the property only after repayment of the loan balance; addendum provided alternative payment if sale did not occur.
- Jamar failed to complete renovations or sell by January 1, 2010, made only two payments, and accrued substantial HOA dues and taxes.
- Trial court awarded Weaver title to the property, declared Jamar liable for certain taxes and HOA expenses, and awarded attorney’s fees to Weaver but awarded Jamar $62,000 for improvements.
- Weaver appealed, challenging the construction, remedies, and certain monetary awards; the appellate court modified the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether award of $62,000 to Jamar was proper | Weaver: no written approval for improvements; contract requires mutual sign-off | Jamar: improvements were approved by the parties; contract allows reimbursement | Denied; $62,000 award deleted |
| Whether the contract's remedies were properly interpreted, including extinguishing the loan balance | Weaver: contract should not extinguish balance; interest remains | Jamar: contract remedy extinguishes balance upon Weaver taking title | Remedy applied; balance extinguished upon transfer of title |
| Whether Weaver was entitled to a money judgment for unpaid taxes and HOA fees | Weaver: Jamar liable for HOA expenses and taxes | Jamar: disputed the amounts or enforceability | Jamar liable; judgment modified to $9,295.79 (HOA) and $30,316.01 (taxes) |
| Whether attorney’s fees award was appropriate | Weaver: should recover full demonstrated fees | Jamar: fees should be limited; trial court has discretion | Court did not abuse discretion; full award not affirmed, but judgment affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. 2003) (contract interpretation; ambiguity question as a matter of law)
- MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Tex. Utils. Elec. Co., 995 S.W.2d 647 (Tex. 1999) (interpretation of unambiguous contracts; de novo review)
- Deep Water Slender Wells, Ltd. v. Shell Int’l Exploration & Prod., Inc., 234 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (contract interpretation; business context applied)
- Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. 1996) (ambiguity and contract interpretation principles)
- Forest Oil Corp. v. Eagle Rock Field Servs., LP, 349 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (interpretation; avoid unreasonable constructions)
- Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Renaissance Women’s Grp., P.A., 121 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (contract interpretation; plain meaning applied)
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (contract remedies; balance includes principal and interest)
- Dobbins v. Redden, 785 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. 1990) (pleading requirements; quantum meruit viability)
- Myrex Indus., Inc. v. Ortolon, 126 S.W.3d 548 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (elements of quantum meruit; implied contracts)
- Paul, 927 S.W.2d 239 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996) (quantum meruit evidence standards)
- Fein v. R.P.H., 68 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (contractual terms; enforce meaning of terms)
- Advanced Polymer Servs., Inc. v. SAVA gumarska in kemijska industria, D.D., 128 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (contract remedies and disclosure of contractual limits)