Daftary v. Prestonwood Market Square, Ltd.
399 S.W.3d 708
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Daftarys appeal after trial court awarded possession, damages, and attorney’s fees to HSM in a forcible-entry and detainer action.
- Trial court concluded HSM entitled to possession, rent due, and attorney’s fees; judgment later vacated by this court on rehearing.
- Issue of mootness arose because Daftarys tendered possession at trial, but damages and attorney’s fees remained live controversies.
- Court held live claims for damages and attorney’s fees; jurisdiction intact to decide those issues, and possession was moot for purposes of finality.
- Damages awarded under Rule 752 were reversed due to insufficient evidence of pendency period rental value; remanded for damages retrial and take-nothing on damages.
- Attorney’s fees were severed and remanded for retrial on recoverable fees; severance proper and final judgment issues limited to forcible-detainer action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness and trial court jurisdiction | Daftarys contend mootness bars appeal over possession and related relief. | HSM argues live claims for damages and fees maintain jurisdiction. | Live claims sustain jurisdiction; possession moot but damages/fees live. |
| Sufficiency of damages under Rule 752 | Daftarys argue damage award supported by evidence of holdover rent. | HSM asserts entitlement to damages of $26,000.96 based on rent during appeal. | No evidence of pendency-period rent; remand for damages retrial; take-nothing on damages. |
| Attorney’s fees award preservation and remand | Daftarys challenge improper segregation and fees tied to holdover collection. | HSM asserts fees were properly awarded under rules. | Issue remanded for retrial of recoverable attorney’s fees. |
| Severance and final judgment | Daftarys contend severance produced no final, appealable judgment. | HSM argues severance was proper and within Rule 41. | Severance proper; appellate complaints about severance dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; judgment limited to forcible-detainer issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sepulveda v. Medrano, 328 S.W.3d 620 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (mootness in appellate review)
- Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex.2001) (need a live controversy at all stages)
- City of Dallas v. Woodfield, 305 S.W.3d 412 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (vacate or dismiss when controversy moot)
- Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex.2006) (possession mootness when property changed hands)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640 (Tex.2005) (live controversy can prevent mootness in fee disputes)
- Perez v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tex., Inc., 127 S.W.3d 826 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003) (damages and pendency considerations in appeals)
- Barker v. Eckman, 213 S.W.3d 306 (Tex.2006) (reconsideration of retrial when damages reduced)
- Young v. Qualls, 223 S.W.3d 312 (Tex.2007) (same rationale for attorney’s-fees retrial when damages reduced)
- Valero Eastex Pipeline Co. v. Jarvis, 990 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1999) (stipulations may be modified or withdrawn at trial court’s discretion)
- F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez, 237 S.W.3d 680 (Tex.2007) (severance criteria for multiple claims)
- Guaranty Fed. v. Horseshoe Operating, 793 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.1990) (severance considerations and justice)