Bluelinx Corp. v. Texas Construction Systems, Inc.
363 S.W.3d 623
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- TCS sued Bluelinx for breach of contract and quantum meruit after Bluelinx fired TCS and replaced it on a storage shed project; TCS placed a mechanic's lien on Bluelinx's property and sought foreclosure and attorney's fees; the contract required TCS to obtain a City of Houston building permit, which Sturges spent substantial time attempting to secure; Bluelinx claimed the permit work was within contract scope; the jury found no breach of contract but awarded TCS $10,046.20 on quantum meruit; the court foreclosed the lien and awarded fees, which Bluelinx appeals; the panel issued a substitute opinion on rehearing reducing damages and remanding on fees; the core issues involve quantum meruit, foreclosure propriety, fees, costs, and findings of fact/conclusions of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantum meruit submission and sufficiency | Bluelinx argues no quantum meruit if express contract exists | TCS argues valid quantum meruit where services/materials exceed contract scope | Judgment modified: $2,130.02 awarded; quantum meruit submission upheld. |
| Foreclosure on lien | Foreclosure granted without Bluelinx opportunity to defend | Foreclosure properly requested in motion for judgment; defenses available | Foreclosure upheld; Bluelinx did have opportunity to present defenses. |
| Attorney's fees | Fees awarded without jury finding; error | Fees recoverable under statute; any error harmless given other issues | Reversed and remanded for new trial on attorney's fees due to damages reduction. |
| Costs | Costs improper if Bluelinx not successful | Costs authorized in foreclosures; record supports costs | Costs affirmed; no reversible error. |
| Findings of fact and conclusions of law | Rule 296 findings required; omission harmful | Harmless error given judgment specifics | Harmless; no reversible error in failing to enter findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vortt Exploration Co. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. 1990) (elements of quantum meruit)
- Wohlfahrt v. Holloway, 172 S.W.3d 630 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (quantum meruit framework)
- Black Lake Pipe Line Co. v. Union Constr. Co., 538 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1976) (existence of express contract does not bar quantum meruit for uncovered items)
- Truly v. Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1988) (exceptions to express contract bar to quantum meruit)
- Pepi Corp. v. Galliford, 254 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (recognition of quantum meruit exceptions)
- In re Polymerica, LLC, 296 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2009) (parol evidence cannot create ambiguity in unambiguous contract)
- Tellepsen Builders, L.P. v. Kendall/Heaton Assocs., Inc., 325 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (unambiguous contract enforced as written)
- Campbell v. Nw. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 573 S.W.2d 496 (Tex. 1978) (quantum meruit available for unpaid services)
- Scott v. Walker, 170 S.W.2d 718 (Tex. 1943) (enforcement of unpaid obligation via quantum meruit under statute)
- Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. ICO, Inc., 230 S.W.3d 702 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (harm standard for failure to enter findings)