Eun Bok Lee v. Ho Chang Lee, 411 S.W.3d 95

Landlord-Eun Bok Lee sold gas-station business to Ho Chang Lee in 1993 with a lease; Korean-language sales contract created dispute over transfer of ownership of equipment (including underground tanks) vs. mere possession.
Lease term 6 years, rent initially $3,500, with a Korean addendum tying adjustments to CPI and other costs; security deposit of $3,500.
By 2005, after a long tenure, parties disputed ownership of equipment and inventory; landlord locked tenant out, terminating possession without notice; inventories and equipment were used by landlord after lockout.
Jury found landlord overcharged rent 2001–2005, wrongfully retained security deposit, wrongful eviction, conversion, theft, and unjust enrichment; damages itemized across multiple categories; tenant sought exemplary damages; trial court awarded substantial damages but not exemplary damages and did not specify theory behind damages.
Court reversed portions, reformed damages, vacated prejudgment interest, and remanded for recalculation; affirmed other aspects of judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutory damages for withheld security deposit were proper	Lee sought treble damages under §93.011	Lee contends no pleading/consent support; bad-faith not tried	Statutory damages were not pleaded or tried by consent; treble damages reversed; $3,500 recovered.
Whether the eviction damages were recoverable and proper	Lee entitled to damages for wrongful eviction	Delinquent rent and lockout defense negate damages	Sufficient evidence supported wrongful eviction; allowed actual damages and one month’s rent per statute; no double recovery.
Whether equipment and inventory damages were proper under conversion/theft and whether unjust enrichment is available	Tenant owned equipment and seeks damages under conversion/theft and unjust enrichment	Equipment possibly fixtures; ownership dispute unresolved; some items not personal property	Gas tanks, walk-in cooler, and vapor recovery system were fixtures; unjust enrichment permitted to compensate value of equipment; conversion/theft damages affirmed for other items; affirmed overall damages.
Whether exemplary damages were properly handled given the jury and statutory standards	Tenant sought exemplary damages under §41.003	No proper instruction and statute requirements unmet; error preserved?	Exemplary damages were not awarded in judgment; cross-appeal on exemplary damages affirmed as immaterial; court upholds no exemplary damages.

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (no-evidence standard and appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
Frost Nat’l Bank v. L&F Distribs., Ltd., 165 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2005) (contract interpretation and ambiguity standard)
Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1983) (contract interpretation and ambiguity; parol evidence admissibility)
Tellepsen Builders, L.P. v. Kendall/Heaton Assocs., Inc., 325 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. App.—Hou. [1st Dist.] 2010) (ambiguity and contract interpretation; parol evidence rules)
Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (evidentiary standard for sufficiency review; general deliberations)