Belvedere Condominiums at State Thomas, Inc. v. Meeks Design Group, Inc.
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 9594
Tex. App.2010Background
- Belvedere appeals an interlocutory order dismissing negligence claims against Meeks under Chapter 150 for failure to file a valid certificate of merit.
- Belvedere added Meeks (architect/landscape architect) to its ninth amended petition alleging negligence and breach of warranty in courtyard drainage design/construction.
- Meeks moved to dismiss arguing Ray’s certificate of merit did not comply because Ray did not hold the same license area or practice in the same area as Meeks.
- The trial court dismissed; Belvedere sought interlocutory review of the dismissal.
- The issues center on whether Ray’s certificate complied with §150.002(a) and whether a certificate is required for landscape architects under the 2005 version of Chapter 150.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ray’s certificate satisfies §150.002(a). | Belvedere asserts Ray’s engineering license subsumes landscape architecture. | Meeks argues Ray did not practice in the same area as Meeks and thus certificate fails. | Ray’s certificate did not meet the requirement to practice in the same area; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether a certificate of merit is required for landscape architects under §150.002. | Belvedere contends no certificate is needed for landscape architects under the 2005 version. | Meeks argues the statute requires a certificate; Belvedere did not preserve error. | Issue not preserved; affirmed dismissal for lack of preservation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landreth v. Las Brisas Council of Co-Owners, Inc., 285 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2009) (abuse of discretion standard and statutory interpretation rules)
- Consolidated Reinforcement, L.P. v. Carothers Executive Homes, Ltd., 271 S.W.3d 887 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008) (abuse of discretion/interpretation of Chapter 150 standards)
- DLB Architects, P.C. v. Weaver, 305 S.W.3d 407 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (statutory interpretation of §150.002; de novo review)
- In re Estate of Miller, 243 S.W.3d 831 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (preservation standards for appellate review)
- Palladian Bldg. Co., Inc. v. Nortex Found. Designs, Inc., 165 S.W.3d 430 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005) (abuse of discretion; construction of Chapter 150 requirements)
- City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2008) (statutory interpretation and ordinary meaning of terms)