365 S.W.3d 688
Tex. App.2011Background
- Lone Starr leased a Houston property in May 1998 for adult-entertainment uses; original term ended 2001, with month-to-month tenancy afterward and rent of $8,200 until 1999, then $8,600 thereafter.
- Lone Starr bore maintenance obligations to keep premises in good repair and to deliver the premises free of trash in good condition at lease end.
- Max posted a $5,000 security deposit; later, in 2006, Lone Starr vacated and Max inspected the premises, finding extensive damage beyond normal wear and tear.
- Max demanded damages totaling $56,008.20 (repairs/damages plus three months’ rent) and deducted the $5,000 security deposit; Lone Starr disputed deductions and requested return of the deposit.
- Lone Starr sued for recovery of the deposit; Max sued for breach of the lease; trial produced conflicting repair-condition evidence and a jury verdict for Max on breach and damages.
- Judgment awarded Max $47,858.20 (damages for repairs plus attorney’s fees for trial and appeal) with a take-nothing on Lone Starr’s counterclaims; on appeal, the court reversed the lost-rent damages and remanded for a new trial on attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach and damages sufficiency | Lone Starr contends breach findings are immaterial/unsupported; evidence cannot prove damages for repairs. | Max failed to prove damages were necessary or that breach caused the amount claimed; ordinary wear and tear excluded. | Evidence supports breach and $22,058.20 repairs; damages are legally and factually sufficient. |
| Lost rent damages proper measure | Questions on lost rent were defective/immaterial; trial implicitly awarded rent based on FMV without controlling damages. | Lost rent was improperly calculated from unrelated questions; should have been ruled immaterial. | Questions were immaterial; trial court erred; lost-rent damages reversed; Max takes nothing on lost rent. |
| Security deposit deduction description | Max failed to provide written description and itemized list of deductions; Lone Starr entitled to offset deposit. | Max complied with §93.006(c); itemized schedule and photos sufficiently described deductions. | Sufficient evidence supported that Max provided a written description and itemized deductions; no offset ruling for Lone Starr. |
| Admission of Becker testimony | Becker’s testimony on repair costs was essential and excluded improperly. | Becker was not designated as an expert and lacked personal knowledge; exclusion was proper. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Becker testimony properly excluded. |
| Attorney’s fees remand vs. retrial | Attorney’s fees should be awarded given prevailing breach damages; no retrial needed. | Damages reduction tainted the fee issue; must remand for new attorney’s-fees trial. | Remand for new trial on attorney’s fees; reduction of damages warrants retrial of fees; other portions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal and factual sufficiency reviews)
- Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng'rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (standards for reviewing conflicting evidence)
- Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. 2000) (juror instruction and evidence review)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2007) (charge error and harm analysis)
- Siegler v. Robinson, 600 S.W.2d 382 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1980) (landlord damages for repairs; reasonable costs)
- Stutzman v. Torrington Co., 46 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2000) (remedies for defective jury questions; materiality)
- Bossier Chrysler–Dodge II, Inc. v. Rauschenberg, 238 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. 2007) (necessity of retrial for attorney’s fees following damages reduction)
- Young v. Qualls, 223 S.W.3d 312 (Tex. 2007) (retrial considerations when damages are reduced)