Park Plaza Solo, LLC v. Benchmark-Hereford, Inc.
07-16-00004-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Benchmark leased part of a building from Park to open a Sears store; the lease allocated construction duties (partition wall, electrical wiring, etc.) between the parties.
- Benchmark periodically received utility invoices and paid amounts it later claimed were paid under threat of eviction by Park.
- Benchmark sued Park alleging duress and breach of contract (failure to install partition wall insulation, electrical wiring to Sears’ requirements, and wiring for an outdoor sign); the case was tried to a jury, which returned verdicts for Benchmark and awarded $24,276.20 plus attorney’s fees.
- Park appealed, contesting sufficiency of the evidence on duress and breach, the propriety of jury questions, the damages award, attorney’s fees, and post-judgment interest.
- The court reviewed legal and factual sufficiency standards, analyzed duress elements, contract interpretation, and the proper measure and proof of contract/construction damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Duress (payment of utilities) | Benchmark: paid utilities under duress because Park threatened eviction | Park: lease gave Park right to terminate for breach; no unlawful threat; no evidence of a threat to do something Park had no legal right to do | Reversed — evidence insufficient to prove duress; threat to evict (or commence suit) cannot establish duress here |
| 2. Damages for duress | Benchmark: entitled to damages caused by duress | Park: if duress finding fails, duress damages are immaterial | Sustained — duress not proven, so duress damages not recoverable |
| 3. Breach of lease (failure to perform build-out tasks) | Benchmark: Park failed to perform obligations (wall insulation, wiring), causing damages | Park: either jury was asked to decide a question of law; insufficient evidence of breach and of warranty-of-quiet-enjoyment claim | Partially overruled/affirmed — jury question wording about "interpretation" was problematic but breach issues presented factual disputes; warranty-of-quiet-enjoyment claim lacked evidence and cannot stand |
| 4. Contract damages (costs to complete wiring, sign wiring, insulation) | Benchmark: recovered out‑of‑pocket costs (TBar and other invoices) as remedial damages | Park: Benchmark failed to prove costs were reasonable, necessary, or causally linked to Park’s breach; mere invoices insufficient under McGinty | Reversed — legally insufficient evidence for each damage component; out‑of‑pocket invoices alone do not prove reasonable/necessary remedial damages |
| 5. Attorney’s fees under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 38 | Benchmark: prevailing party on breach entitled to fees | Park: Benchmark did not obtain an effective liability finding or recover damages as required | Sustained — no recoverable contract damages proved, so Chapter 38 fees unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Southwestern Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. 2016) (legal-sufficiency standards summarized)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Phillips, 485 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. 2016) (evidence-appellate review principles)
- Continental Cas. Co. v. Huizar, 740 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1987) (threat to commence civil action cannot constitute duress)
- Vortt Expl. Co. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. 1990) (quantum meruit as recovery where no express contract covers services)
- McGinty v. Hennen, 372 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. 2012) (measure of construction damages; out-of-pocket costs insufficient without proof of reasonableness and necessity)
- Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co., 134 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. 2004) (proof requirements for remedial damages/reasonableness)
- Ashford Partners, Ltd. v. ECO Res., Inc., 401 S.W.3d 35 (Tex. 2012) (to recover attorney’s fees under Chapter 38, plaintiff must prevail on breach and recover damages)
- Sea Hoss Marine Enters., Inc. v. Angleton Bank of Commerce, 536 S.W.2d 592 (Tex. App. — Houston 1976) (duress: factual findings vs. legal determination)