Nadir N. Ali and Mumtaz Ali v. Flessner Enterprises, Inc.
13-15-00095-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 30, 2015Background
- This is an appeal from a bench trial on a suit on sworn account/breach of contract claiming FEI provided electrical work for Ali’s FasTrak Express and sought $145,543.37 with interest and attorney’s fees.
- FEI’s last date of work was stated as March 16, 2009, with no further charges for work after that date.
- Ali answered with denial and raised limitations, laches, and statute of frauds as affirmative defenses; Ali later moved for summary judgment based on a four-year limitations period.
- Trial court denied summary judgment; after trial, FEI was awarded $145,543.37 and $4,500 in attorney’s fees on December 3, 2014.
- Ali timely filed post-trial findings requests; FEI’s findings addressed only the sworn account, not Ali’s defenses, prompting Ali to seek additional findings.
- Ali appeals asserting (1) limitations barred FEI’s claim, (2) no enforceable contract in writing, (3) attorney’s fees improper absent statute/contract and evidentiary support, and (4) trial court failed to sign requested additional findings; the appellate briefing contends FEI’s suit was untimely and unsupported by a contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| accrual of FEI’s claim for limitations | Ali contends FEI’s claim accrued on last work date (March 16, 2009) and suit filed March 28, 2013 is timely | Ali argues limitations barred FEI since accrual occurred in 2009 under a continuing contract theory | FEI’s claim barred by four-year statute of limitations; substantial completion March 16, 2009 triggered accrual |
| enforceability of the oral contract under the statute of frauds | Ali asserts there was a written contract signed by Ali; FEI argues there was an oral, non‑specific agreement | Ali contends no sufficient writing or definite terms to satisfy the statute of frauds | No enforceable contract; oral terms were indefinite and not sufficiently specific to meet the statute of frauds; judgment for FEI reversed |
| attorney’s fees award | FEI sought $4,500 in attorney’s fees under contract theory | No contract enforceable; no evidence supporting reasonableness or amount of fees | Attorney’s fees award reversed due to lack of contractual/statutory basis and absence of evidence supporting amount |
| need for additional findings and conclusions | Ali requested additional findings to address limitations defenses; trial court did not sign | Additional findings necessary to resolve limitations and accrual | Trial court erred in not signing requested additional findings; such findings could have yielded a different judgment |
| effect of pleadings and Rule 185 on FEI’s claim | FEI’s claim was a suit on sworn account under Rule 185; sworn denial negates evidentiary effect and requires proof of claim | Ali’s sworn denial shifts burden to FEI to prove breach | Rule 185 evidentiary effect negated by Ali’s sworn denial; FEI had burden to prove breach; no contract existed |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (relevance of standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engr’s & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (contract formation and sufficiency of terms; enforceability of contract law)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Schleider, 124 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (attorney’s fees and contract enforcement considerations)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (evidentiary standards and proof requirements in contract disputes)
- O'Farrill Avila v. Gonzalez, 974 S.W.2d 237 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998) (statute of frauds application to contract formation)
- Luna v. Luna, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 3267 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011) (elements for contract formation and enforceability (cited for general contract principles))
- T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. 1992) (elements of contract formation; definiteness of terms)