Bercat Management, LLC v. Joseph Murphy and Taylor Murphy
02-20-00354-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 28, 2021Background
- Joseph and Taylor Murphy leased a house from Bercat Management, LLC from Oct. 19, 2016 to Jan. 31, 2019 and paid a $1,650 security deposit.
- After move-out, Bercat withheld portions of the deposit for: interior wall repairs/painting ($1,400), a late rent fee ($35), and professional cleaning ($174), and mailed the Murphys a $41 refund.
- The Murphys sued in justice court for return of the deposit; the justice court awarded them $1,435. Bercat appealed to county court where a de novo bench trial was held.
- The county court entered judgment for the Murphys for $1,000 plus costs and interest, finding them to be the prevailing parties; no findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested.
- On appeal, the court reviewed legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s implied findings; it affirmed but modified the judgment to return $965 to the Murphys (i.e., Bercat could withhold $685: $650 for wall repairs and $35 late fee).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murphy) | Defendant's Argument (Bercat) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deductions for wall repairs exceeded normal wear and tear | Most defects were normal wear and tear; Murphys had patched major holes and left the home in good condition | Contractor and property manager testified damage exceeded normal wear and tear and Bercat paid $1,725 to repaint/repair | Court upheld that some damage exceeded normal wear and tear but reduced Bercat’s withholding: $650 was reasonable (not the full $1,400) |
| Validity of $35 late rent fee | Murphys did not effectively dispute the late fee at trial or on appeal | Bercat produced email and lease provisions showing February 2018 rent was late (payment on Feb. 5) and fee was contractually permitted | Fee sustained: $35 deduction allowed |
| Deduction for professional cleaning ($174) | Murphys testified they professionally cleaned on move-out; trial court credited them | Bercat produced a receipt showing it paid $162.38 for cleaning six weeks after move-out and argued deduction was reasonable | Trial court credited Murphys on cleanliness; appellate court did not disturb that credibility finding and did not allow the cleaning deduction |
| Prevailing party / attorney’s fees | Murphys argued they prevailed and were entitled to costs; they sought no attorney’s fees (pro se) | Bercat claimed it was prevailing and sought attorney’s fees | Court did not award Bercat fees; because appellate disposition resolved the merits against Bercat, the court did not reach Bercat’s separate prevailing-party contention and affirmed Murphys as prevailing party as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Shields Ltd. P’ship v. Bradberry, 526 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. 2017) (implied findings and sufficiency-review principles for bench trials)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (legal-sufficiency review when appellant bore burden of proof)
- Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986) (standard for factual-sufficiency review)
- Pulley v. Milberger, 198 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (landlord must prove reasonableness of security-deposit deductions)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Burk, 295 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (trial-court credibility determinations govern appellate review)
- McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. 1986) (house repairs are not exclusively matters for expert testimony)