Christopher Graham v. Darla Compton
05-20-01013-CV
| Tex. App. | May 10, 2022Background
- Compton sued Graham in justice of the peace court alleging theft of services for private process serving and sought money damages plus attorney’s fees; she later supplemented to assert a quantum meruit claim for $7,018.37.
- The JP court awarded Compton $5,833.80 plus interest and costs; Graham appealed to the county court at law.
- In county court Graham filed traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment; no written rulings appear in the record, and the case proceeded to a bench trial.
- The trial court awarded Compton judgment on her quantum meruit claim: $1,864.92 actual damages and $4,360 in attorney’s fees, plus specified contingent appellate fees; Graham appealed.
- On appeal Graham challenged (1) legal sufficiency of evidence supporting the reasonable value of services, (2) propriety of the attorney-fee award given the pleadings, and (3) the trial court’s failure to rule on his summary-judgment motion (seeking mandamus relief).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Compton) | Defendant's Argument (Graham) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of evidence for quantum meruit damages | Compton: produced rate sheet, invoices, emails, and testimony showing Graham agreed to her quoted prices and expenses | Graham: no evidence of reasonable value of services | Court: Evidence legally sufficient; affirmed quantum meruit award |
| 2. Award of attorney's fees | Compton: original petition sought "reasonable attorney fees" and supplemental pleading did not eliminate fee claim; parties litigated fees | Graham: amended/supplemented pleading did not request fees so fee award improper | Court: Fee request was pleaded; plaintiff may recover under any legal basis available (§38.001 applies); fee award proper |
| 3. Failure to rule on summary judgment / mandamus | Compton: no record showing request to rule or denial; issue not preserved | Graham: trial court refused to rule and mandamus is appropriate | Court: Graham failed to preserve complaint—no showing the issue was presented or denied—waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Exp. Centurion Bank v. Minckler, 345 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (when trial court makes no findings, implied findings support judgment but can be reviewed for legal sufficiency if record included)
- LTS Grp., Inc. v. Woodcrest Capital, L.L.C., 222 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (elements of quantum meruit and measure of damages is reasonable value of services)
- Cent. Forest S/C Partners, Ltd. v. Mundo–Mundo, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (pleadings must invoke court's jurisdiction to award attorney's fees)
- Alan Reuber Chevrolet, Inc. v. Grady Chevrolet, Ltd., 287 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (judgment awarding fees unsupported by pleadings is void)
- Smith v. Deneve, 285 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (plaintiff who did not specify legal basis for fees may recover on any available legal basis)
- In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1999) (mandamus generally requires a predicate request to the trial judge and a denial)
- Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. 1990) (same principle for mandamus relief requirement)