Brazos Valley Roadrunners, L.P v. Ian Cichy
10-19-00424-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 28, 2021Background:
- On May 4, 2019, Cichy parked in the Coyote Lot (owned by Dixie Chicken, Inc.) and discovered the lot accepted cash only.
- He left the lot for ≈5 minutes to get $5 cash, returned, signaled spotters (waved cash, honked), paid $5 at the pay station, and remained on site for about an hour.
- Roadrunners towed Cichy’s vehicle about an hour after payment; Cichy paid $319.05 to retrieve it and sued under the Texas Towing and Booting Act claiming removal without probable cause.
- A justice court ruled for Cichy; on de novo appeal the County Court at Law entered judgment for Cichy (award $360 and interest) and made findings that Roadrunners lacked probable cause.
- Roadrunners had an enforcement contract with Dixie Chicken, but the trial court found the contract did not address the specific situation; Roadrunners appealed raising three issues.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cichy) | Defendant's Argument (Roadrunners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the contract between Roadrunners and Dixie Chicken governs this situation | Contract adequacy not challenged; Cichy relied on evidence payment occurred before tow | Contract authorizes enforcement and the lot rules require payment before leaving, justifying tow | Issue deemed immaterial to outcome; appellate court overruled it (trial court had found contract did not address situation) |
| 2. Legal sufficiency: Was there probable cause to tow? | No probable cause: surveillance showed Cichy paid prior to tow and was authorized to park when towed | Probable cause existed because Cichy briefly left lot before paying and rules require payment before leaving | Court held legally sufficient evidence supports trial court’s finding that Roadrunners lacked probable cause; overruled defendant’s argument |
| 3. Factual sufficiency: Was the trial court’s no-probable-cause finding against the great weight of evidence? | Evidence (video, testimony) shows payment and authorization before tow; finding not against great weight | Towing was justified by a temporary unauthorized interval when he left to get cash | Court held the finding was not against the great weight and preponderance of evidence; overruled defendant’s challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. 1994) (bench-trial findings reviewed under legal and factual sufficiency standards)
- Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. 1991) (bench-trial factfinding standards)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (review of legal conclusions de novo)
- Kroger Tex., Ltd. P’ship v. Suberu, 216 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. 2006) (legal-sufficiency review crediting supporting evidence)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal-sufficiency review)
- Ortiz v. Jones, 917 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. 1996) (factual-sufficiency/great-weight standard)
- Manderscheid v. LAZ Parking of Tex., LLC, 506 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (procedure for appeals under the Towing and Booting Act)
- Small v. State, 977 S.W.2d 771 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998) (probable-cause description in analogous contexts)