Lakesha Samuels and Corey Samuels v. Sayed Nasir
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 10977
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- LaKesha and Corey Samuels leased a partially furnished Fort Worth house from Sayed Nasir beginning January 2011; rent was $1,280/mo plus $160/mo for furniture and a $25/day late fee. Lease required 30 days' written notice to terminate and prohibited abandonment.
- The Samuels fell behind on rent after filing for divorce; two checks for July/August (the “First” and “Second” checks) were returned for insufficient funds and a frozen account. Appellants produced a bank screenshot suggesting a third check (the “Third Check”) cleared; Nasir denied receiving it.
- Nasir sent a Notice to Pay or Vacate (certified mail) and later emailed rescinding the notice after claiming receipt of payments; Appellants vacated the property Aug. 31 without 30 days' written notice.
- Nasir inspected the property after vacancy, alleged missing furniture (washer/dryer, bed, coffee table, end table, garage opener/keys) and damage requiring cleaning/repairs; he sued for breach of contract, conversion, and theft seeking ~$19,100.
- The county court entered judgment against both Samuels: LaKesha liable for $2,584 plus $1,000 statutory theft damages and $2,000 attorneys’ fees; Corey liable for $8,270 plus costs. Appellants appealed asserting legal and factual insufficiency and excessive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Samuels' Argument | Nasir's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability for July/August rent | Tendering checks and showing a cleared Third Check absolves or reduces rent liability | Bank returned two checks; whether Third Check was deposited is ambiguous; Appellants remained liable | Court found evidence legally and factually sufficient to support rent award; Appellants’ proof of payment was inconclusive; Issue overruled |
| Damages for property repair | Repair receipts submitted by Nasir insufficient or inconsistent to support awarded amount | Nasir presented receipts and testimony totaling repairs; lay testimony and invoices supported cost and causation | Court held repair evidence legally and factually sufficient to support award for cleaning/repairs; Issue overruled |
| Value of missing/converted furniture | Nasir failed to provide receipts; values are speculative | Nasir testified to purchase/value and established missing items post-vacancy; created permissible lay opinion and inference of conversion | Court found testimony and circumstances sufficient to support $1,600 conversion award; Issue overruled |
| Overall excessiveness / remittitur | Total award excessive; requests remittitur of judgment to smaller amount | Nasir defends total calculation; trial court’s oral judgment controlled | Court affirmed as to LaKesha; found a mathematical/arithmetic discrepancy in Corey's judgment and suggested remittitur of $2,536 to reduce Corey’s judgment from $8,270 to $5,734, or remand for new trial if not accepted |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal sufficiency review)
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (standards for factual sufficiency review)
- Rocor Int’l, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 77 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. 2002) (more-than-a-scintilla standard explained)
- Fort Worth Hotel Ltd. P’ship v. Enserch Corp., 977 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998) (need to prove reasonable value of repair costs)
- Larson v. Cactus Util. Co., 730 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1987) (remittitur vs. rendition guidance)
- City of Emory v. Lusk, 278 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2009) (procedure for suggesting remittitur and option to accept or retry)