Jerry Michael Chance D/B/A Outer Limits Game Room v. Elliot & Lillian, LLC, 462 S.W.3d 276

Elliot & Lillian, LLC (landlord) sued Jerry Michael Chance d/b/a Outer Limits Gameroom (tenant) for breach of a 3‑year commercial lease (Dec. 1, 2009–Dec. 31, 2012), seeking unpaid rent, repair costs for alleged unauthorized alterations, and attorneys’ fees.
Elliot moved for traditional summary judgment, presenting the executed lease, an affidavit claiming $32,000 unpaid rent, an itemized invoice of $27,701.18 in repair costs, and redacted billing showing $9,007.38 in fees.
Chance responded with an affidavit denying breach, alleging Elliot failed to perform required repairs (including parking lot), which caused his certificate of occupancy to be revoked and forced him to vacate; he also alleged water‑billing and that Elliot re‑rented the premises months after he left.
Both parties objected to portions of the other’s summary judgment evidence (Rule 166a and Rule 193.6 discovery/exclusion objections). The trial court instructed counsel to submit objections post‑hearing but the signed summary judgment order made no explicit ruling on evidentiary objections and granted summary judgment to Elliot for specified sums.
On appeal, the court held it could consider all summary judgment evidence (no implicit ruling shown) and found genuine fact issues about landlord performance, tenant breach, and resulting damages, reversed the summary judgment, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Elliot)	Defendant's Argument (Chance)	Held
Whether summary judgment was proper on breach of contract	No genuine issue: Chance failed to pay rent and caused $27,701.18 in damages; proof entitles Elliot to judgment	Genuine issues: Elliot failed to tender performance (repairs); revocation of certificate of occupancy forced tenant to vacate; disputes over damages and conduct	Reversed — genuine fact issues exist on performance, breach, and damages; summary judgment improper
Whether trial court ruled on evidentiary objections without stating so in order	Objections preserved/ruled for Elliot; evidence should be excluded	No implicit ruling shown; record insufficient to infer exclusion; appellate court may review all evidence	Court found no record of an implicit ruling; allowed consideration of all summary judgment evidence
Whether Chance’s affidavit was excluded under Rule 193.6 for failure to disclose	Affidavit should be excluded as untimely disclosure under Rule 193.6	Affidavit admissible; trial court did not expressly strike it and no implicit ruling exists	Court declined automatic exclusion; considered Chance’s affidavit because no trial court ruling excluded it
Standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment	Movant must prove no genuine issue; movant met burden	Nonmovant raises fact issues through affidavit and contradictory evidence	Court applied de novo review and concluded triable issues exist

Mead v. RLMC, Inc., 225 S.W.3d 710 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (discusses when a trial court implicitly rules on evidentiary objections to summary judgment evidence)
Frazier v. Yu, 987 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999) (inference of implicit ruling where record indicates court action on objections)
Wrenn v. GATX Logistics, Inc., 73 S.W.3d 489 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002) (cannot infer an implicit ruling when record is silent about objections)
Ft. Brown Villas III Condominium Ass’n v. Gillenwater, 285 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. 2009) (Rule 193.6 exclusion of undisclosed expert—good cause and lack of unfair surprise required to overcome exclusion)
Amedisys, Inc. v. Kingwood Home Health Care, LLC, 437 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2014) (burden shifting in traditional summary judgment)
Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. 2009) (de novo review of summary judgment)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing evidence and drawing inferences on summary judgment)
Rice v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 324 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010) (elements of breach of contract)