Guillermo Garza D/B/A Wilhome Builders & Construction v. Jesse Cantu, 431 S.W.3d 96

This case was originally decided in 2013 with a reversal of the trial court’s JNOV and remand for a new trial, via a substitute opinion filed August 27, 2013.
Garza, operating as Wilhome Builders & Construction, sued Cantu for breach of a cost-plus construction contract for a duplex.
The contract provided for a price “based on cost plus” a 15% Builder’s Consulting Fee, with an unpaid portion of the estimated sale price at dispute.
The jury found for Garza on liability but awarded damaged amounts that the trial court later found legally insufficient and granted JNOV,” resulting in a take-nothing judgment.
On appeal, Garza argued there was legally sufficient evidence of damages, but the amounts awarded were not supported, requiring remand for a new trial.
The court held that while the damages amounts were not supported by legally sufficient evidence, there was some evidentiary support for damages, warranting a remand for a new trial rather than rendition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the jury’s damages awards legally insufficient evidence-based?	Garza argues there is some evidence of damages and the two damage elements were properly submitted.	Cantu contends the damages awards lack evidentiary support for the cost-to-complete and related components.	Yes; no-evidence supports the exact damages amounts, requiring remand for a new trial.
Should the reversal be a remand for a new trial or rendition of judgment?	Garza seeks remand to allow retrial on liability and damages given missing evidentiary support.	Cantu argues for rendition because the JNOV should stand if appellant failed to seek remand.	Remand for a new trial is appropriate.
Did Garza address all grounds for the JNOV appealed by Cantu?	Garza contends he challenged all independent bases for the JNOV in the appeal.	Cantu asserted Garza failed to address a causation-based basis for JNOV.	Garza addressed all grounds; merits proceed.

Olin Corp. v. Dyson, 678 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984) (reversal disposition governed by appellate rules when remand is appropriate)
Guevara v. Ferrer, 247 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. 2007) (remittitur vs remand when damages exist but are partially unsupported)
ER I Consulting Eng’rs, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. 2010) (remittitur not available when damages range; damages survive if some evidence supports them)
Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2012) (remand where trial court erred; allows new trial on liability and damages)
Horrocks v. Texas Department of Transportation, 852 S.W.2d 498 (Tex. 1993) (remand for new trial where legal sufficiency preserved, distinct from rendition)
Olin Corp. v. Dyson, 678 S.W.2d 650 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984) (precedent permitting remand when reversal is warranted)
Stevens v. National Education Centers, Inc., 11 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. 2000) (remand proper when relief requested; petition for review governs)
Kaspar v. Thorne, 755 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988) (controls disposition when reversing on appeal (rendition vs remand))