545 S.W.3d 532
Tex.2018Background
- Dudley Construction (general contractor) purchased pipe from ACT Pipe; wrong type (slip-joint) was delivered but ultimately accepted and used after city approved with external restraints; ACT supplied restraints free.
- Parties disputed price: ACT billed higher "restrained-joint" prices; Dudley paid cities for the invoices but did not pay ACT, claiming no agreement on higher prices.
- ACT sued on a sworn account for unpaid invoices and asserted misapplication of construction trust funds under the Texas Construction Trust Fund Act (TCTFA).
- Jury: awarded ACT on Reclaimed Water sworn-account; found ACT not in accordance with agreement on Tabor sworn-account but awarded "reasonable compensation"; found misapplication of trust funds but awarded zero TCTFA damages.
- Trial court granted JNOV, overturning the jury liability finding for the Tabor sworn-account and substituting damages; awarded attorney’s fees to ACT.
- Court of appeals: reversed trial court on Tabor sworn-account (rendered judgment ACT takes nothing on that claim), held some trust-fund sum was conclusively proven but remanded to determine amount, and remanded attorney’s-fees issue. Texas Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ACT) | Defendant's Argument (Dudley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ACT preserved a cross-point to challenge reinstatement of the jury’s zero-damages TCTFA verdict | ACT argued the evidence conclusively established TCTFA damages and defended JNOV; asserted the jury’s zero award was against overwhelming evidence | Dudley argued ACT failed to file required cross-points, so court of appeals must reinstate jury’s verdict | Court: ACT’s substantive appellate arguments functioned as cross-points; court of appeals permissibly treated them as such and remand for determination of TCTFA damages affirmed |
| Whether a remand to trial court was improper absent need for new evidence | ACT implied remand unnecessary because record sufficed; Dudley urged reinstatement of jury verdict per rules | Dudley relied on rule text and Jackson to argue appellate court must render judgment in harmony with verdict if JNOV was erroneous | Court: remand permissible; rules do not always require final disposition by appellate court or new evidence; remand for trial-court proceedings affirmed |
| Whether attorney’s fees are recoverable for a claim under the TCTFA via Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001 | ACT (via court of appeals) relied on precedent analogizing TCTFA damages to quantum meruit or contract-based claims covered by § 38.001 | Dudley argued TCTFA contains no fee provision and § 38.001 does not apply to TCTFA causes of action | Court: reversed court of appeals; neither TCTFA nor § 38.001 authorizes attorney’s fees for TCTFA claims; fees unavailable |
| Scope of remand (whether new trial required or trial court may adjust using record) | ACT urged damages were conclusively proven from record so trial court could adjust judgment | Dudley argued remand should be limited and jury verdict restored | Court: left scope to trial court’s discretion—remand affirmed without directing whether new trial is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Ewton, 411 S.W.2d 715 (Tex. 1967) (explains cross-point requirement when trial court renders JNOV and appellate disposition options)
- Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2000) (advocates substance-over-form in appellate procedure)
- Texarkana Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Murdock, 946 S.W.2d 836 (Tex. 1997) (remand appropriate where some damages are legally supported but amount is not)
- Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (attorney’s fees are not recoverable unless authorized by statute or contract)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. 1996) (attorney’s fees cannot be implied and must be expressly authorized by statute)