RM Crowe Property Services Co. v. Strategic Energy, L.L.C.
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5867
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Strategic Energy, L.L.C. supplied electricity to properties Crowe managed under a 2005 Power Supply Coordination Service Agreement naming Crowe as Buyer.
- Rainier Metroplex Partners, L.P. owned five listed properties and paid Strategic through Rainier after past-due invoices; Strategic and Rainier executed five separate Payment Plans, which stated they did not amend the Agreement and Crowe was not a party to the Plans.
- Crowe failed to make payments under the Agreement; Rainier stopped paying under the Plans, leading Strategic to terminate the Agreement and sue Crowe and Rainier for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and attorneys’ fees.
- Trial court found in Strategic’s favor after a nonjury trial, awarding actual damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees; it issued detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Crowe appealed arguing novation, modification, waiver, and challenged the attorneys’ fees award; the appellate court upheld the findings and affirmed the judgment with adjusted fee rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Novation whether Payment Plans discharged Crowe | Crowe concedes novelty of plans; Rainier's plans release Crowe | Payment Plans created novation to extinguish Crowe’s obligations | Novation not proven; not all three parties agreed; Crowe not discharged |
| Modification whether course of dealing modified Agreement | Modification by prior dealings bound Strategic to look only to buildings for payment | Course of dealing modified the Agreement | Modification not preserved; failure to request specific findings waives error |
| Waiver whether Strategic waived rights against Crowe | Strategic accepted Rainier payments and invoiced properties; acted inconsistently with asserting rights against Crowe | No unequivocal intent to relinquish rights; actions not conclusive waiver | No waiver as a matter of law; no clear intention to relinquish rights |
| Attorneys' fees whether fee award reasonable and recoverable | Affidavits and segregation supported fees; reasonable and customary in the market | Fees not adequately supported or segregated; excessive hours and appellate costs | Fees awarded substantial but court reduced where appropriate; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Vandeventer v. All Am. Life & Cas. Co., 101 S.W.3d 703 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003) (noviation elements require three-party agreement and extinguishment)
- Vickery v. Vickery, 999 S.W.2d 342 (Tex.1999) (four elements of novation; need all to prove)
- Russell v. Ne. Bank, 527 S.W.2d 783 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1975) (novation requires three-party agreement for extinguishment)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for appellate review of fact findings in preemption)
- Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex.1997) (guidance on attorneys’ fees, DR 1.04 factors)
- In re A.B.P., 291 S.W.3d 91 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (evidence sufficiency for fee petitions under Texas law)
- Giron v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 2011 WL 149981 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011) (fee segregation not strictly required to produce exhaustive breakdown)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (federal standard for recovering attorney's fees; must show hours and rates)
- Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex.2006) (segregation of fees by claim; percentage of hours attributable)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex.2001) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in contract cases)