Jennifer Cambas and Lawrence Cambas v. Trinity Roofing & Restoration, LLC
06-24-00073-CV
Tex. App.May 15, 2025Background
- Jennifer and Lawrence Cambas contracted Trinity Roofing & Restoration, LLC to repair extensive water damage to their San Antonio rental property, following approval from their insurer, MetLife.
- The parties executed a written contract referencing an insurance estimate for repairs, with an agreed price of $36,268.38.
- An additional oral agreement for upgrades (e.g., kitchen cabinets, backsplash, ceiling) was made separately, with a later invoice totaling $6,424.03.
- Repair completion faced delays due to COVID-19, material shortages, and contractor issues. Despite these, the Cambases withheld final payment, issuing checks that either bounced or had payment stopped, then hired a subcontractor directly.
- Trinity sued for breach of contract and, alternatively, quantum meruit for the separate oral work; the Cambases counterclaimed alleging poor workmanship and untimeliness.
- The jury found in favor of Trinity on both breach of contract and quantum meruit; judgment included damages and attorney fees for Trinity.
Issues
| Issue | Cambas Argument | Trinity Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for breach of contract | Trinity failed to timely complete repairs; time was of the essence; Cambases excused from payment | Time was not of the essence; delays not material; Cambases materially breached by non-payment | Sufficient evidence supported jury’s verdict for Trinity; time not a material contract term |
| Substantial performance and measure of damages | Cost to fix defects > unpaid contract amount, barring Trinity’s recovery | Work was completed or substantially performed; jury awarded the proven contract balance | Jury’s substantial performance finding disregarded, but not necessary; damages supported contract recovery |
| Quantum meruit recovery for additional work | Express oral contract bars equitable recovery | Oral agreement lacked essential terms, making contract unenforceable; quantum meruit applies | No express enforceable contract for upgrades; quantum meruit recovery allowed |
| Attorney Fees | Should be reversed if liability reversed | Entitled as prevailing party on contract and quantum meruit | Award of attorney fees affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. 2011) (legal sufficiency standard in civil cases)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (standard for showing insufficiency when appellant bore burden of proof)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing jury verdicts)
- Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co., 134 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. 2004) (time is of the essence must be expressly stated to be enforced as a material term)
- T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. 1992) (essential terms and definiteness needed for enforceable contract)
- Vortt Expl. Co. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. 1990) (quantum meruit only available where no express contract covers subject matter)