Isabel G. Baeza, Individually and D/B/A Baeza's Trucking v. Hector's Tire & Wrecker Service Inc.
08-14-00186-CV
| Tex. Crim. App. | Jul 31, 2015

Background

  • Baeza owned a trucking company and contracted Hector’s Tire & Wrecker Service to haul load tickets from a Reeves County plant to designated sites on an as-needed basis; Hector’s would provide loads and Baeza would pay a 5% commission to Hector’s on billed amounts.
  • Load tickets were to be provided to Baeza before payment, and Baeza would bill customers and later pay Hector’s; disputes arose over proper compensation under the agreement.
  • Hector’s demanded payment for unpaid load tickets via a letter around April 11, 2011, claiming about $15,042.55 plus attorney’s fees; Baeza sent partial payments in July 2011 but without indicating acceptance of a full settlement.
  • A second demand letter was sent December 14, 2012 seeking $9,900.25; Hector’s filed suit eight months later alleging breach of contract and seeking damages and attorney’s fees.
  • At trial, the court found a valid contract and breach by Baeza, awarded $9,900.25 in damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees; the court also considered accord and satisfaction defenses and whether remittitur or new trial on damages was appropriate.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether accord and satisfaction bars Hector’s claim Baeza argues accord and satisfaction applies. Hector’s asserted disputes negate the defense. No; evidence does not establish accord and satisfaction as a matter of law.
Whether statutory accord and satisfaction applies Baeza contends checks issued in July 2011 discharged the claim under §3.311. Hector’s accepted but there was no clear indication of full settlement or good-faith intent. No; statutory requirements not proven, and trial court’s implied ruling not against weight.
Whether the damages award is legally and factually insufficient Damages overstated or not properly calculated, including commission adjustments. Damages supported by sworn account and trial evidence; amount disputed but some damages proven. Damages awarded were not fully supported; remand for new damages trial unless remittitur accepted.

Key Cases Cited

  • Group Medical & Surgical Serv., Inc. v. Leong, 750 S.W.2d 791 (Tex.App. – El Paso 1988) (burden of proving accord and satisfaction on moving party)
  • Harris v. Rowe, 593 S.W.2d 303 (Tex. 1979) (burden of proof to establish defenses)
  • Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P., 22 S.W.3d 857 (Tex. 2000) (common-law accord and satisfaction requires a dispute and specific agreement)
  • Melendez v. Padilla, 304 S.W.3d 850 (Tex.App. – El Paso 2010) (definition of accord and satisfaction; proof of dispute and intent)
  • Jenkins v. Henry C. Beck Co., 449 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1969) (need for clear, definite language indicating full settlement)
  • Richardson v. Allstate Texas Lloyd’s, 235 S.W.3d 863 (Tex.App. – Dallas 2007) (notation or communication on tender can establish full settlement)
  • Milton M. Cooke Co. v. First Bank & Trust, 290 S.W.3d 297 (Tex.App. – Houston (1st Dist.) 2009) (codes harmonize with common-law accord and satisfaction)
  • Industrial Life Ins. Co. v. Finley, 382 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. 1964) (tendered instrument must be intended as full settlement; evidence required)
  • Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (remittitur contemplated when some evidence supports lesser damages)
  • Larson v. Cactus Util. Co., 730 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1987) (remittitur framework; option to affirm as modified)
  • Samuels v. Nasir, 445 S.W.3d 886 (Tex.App. – El Paso 2014) (remittitur as alternative to new trial in insufficient damages case)
  • Corral-Lerma v. Border Demolition & Envtl. Inc., 2015 WL 2265082 (Tex.App. – El Paso May 13, 2015) ((not included: WL citation; omitted from list))
Read the full case