Magnolia Finlay & Andrew Finlay v. Elizabeth Blanton
01-14-00764-CV
Tex. App.Apr 16, 2015Background
- Landlord Elizabeth Blanton leased a single residential property to Magnolia and Andrew Finlay starting March 2012; rent was to be paid into a designated USAA account.
- The Finlays made late and misdirected rent payments; by lease end they owed $9,416.66 including late fees.
- Blanton retained the $1,500 security deposit and applied it as an offset against the unpaid rent and fees rather than providing an itemized deduction list.
- The Finlays sued under Tex. Prop. Code § 92.109, alleging bad-faith retention of the security deposit.
- Justice Court entered judgment for the Finlays; on de novo trial in county court the court entered a take-nothing judgment for Blanton.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Finlay) | Defendant's Argument (Blanton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landlord rebutted presumption of bad faith under Tex. Prop. Code § 92.109 | Blanton failed to provide the required itemized list and thus is presumed to have acted in bad faith | Blanton rebutted presumption by testifying she reasonably believed she was entitled to offset unpaid rent/fees, was an amateur lessor, and lacked knowledge of the itemized-list requirement | Court held Blanton successfully rebutted the presumption; take-nothing judgment affirmed |
| Admissibility of exhibits (bank records, internet printouts, invoices) | Exhibits prove payments/timing and support Finlays’ claim | Exhibits are hearsay without proper exception and were properly excluded | Court held trial court did not err excluding the exhibits as hearsay |
| Whether unsworn interruption by Mr. Finlay should have been treated as testimony | The Finlays argue the court improperly prevented Mr. Finlay from testifying while his wife was on the stand | Blanton argues the court properly controlled the mode and order of testimony and prevented unsworn gallery statements from entering the record | Court held judge acted within Rule 611(a); exclusion of unsworn gallery comment was proper |
| Consideration of new defenses/claims on appeal (untimely repairs, forgery, lease errors) | Finlays raised additional factual/defensive theories on appeal | Blanton argues these matters were not pleaded or raised at trial and are waived | Court held issues not pled in trial court are not preserved and cannot be raised for reversal on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pulley v. Milberger, 198 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (evidence that landlord reasonably believed entitlement to deposit can rebut bad-faith presumption)
- Phelps v. Connellee, 285 S.W. 1047 (Tex. 1926) (appellate courts will not reverse on issues not pleaded in the trial court)
- Bank of Garvin v. Freeman, 107 Tex. 523 (Tex. 1915) (judgment basis must be pled; defenses not pleaded cannot defeat recovery)
- Haden v. David J. Sacks, P.C., 332 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (issues not presented to trial court are not grounds for reversal on appeal)
- Wilson v. O’Connor, 555 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1977) (discussing landlord good-faith retention and related sufficiency standards)