Rohrmoos Venture, Eric Langford, Dan Basso and Tobin Grove v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP
559 S.W.3d 155
Tex. App.2015Background
- UT leased commercial space from Rohrmoos to operate a dialysis clinic; persistent water and floor-tile problems led UT to vacate before lease expiration and sue for breach of the implied warranty of suitability and breach of contract.
- UT also sought a declaratory judgment that a lease “casualty” occurred, that landlord failed to remedy it, and that UT had the right to terminate.
- Rohrmoos counterclaimed for negligence and breach of contract and asserted affirmative defenses including prior material breach and waiver.
- After a nine-day trial with extensive expert testimony and exhibits, the jury found both parties breached the lease, Rohrmoos breached first, and Rohrmoos breached the implied warranty of suitability; the jury awarded attorney’s fees to both sides.
- The trial court entered judgment for UT for the attorney’s fees the jury found; Rohrmoos appealed challenging evidentiary rulings, the charge, the implied-warranty finding, and the fee award.
- The court of appeals affirmed, resolving the appeal principally on the unchallenged/adequately supported jury findings that Rohrmoos committed a prior material breach and that UT was the prevailing party entitled to contractual attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (UT) | Defendant's Argument (Rohrmoos) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article XIII ("casualty") provided UT's exclusive remedy, barring implied-warranty relief | Article XIII is not the sole basis; other lease provisions (e.g., landlord maintenance) support UT's claims | Article XIII supplied an exclusive repair remedy; UT abandoned it and cannot pursue implied-warranty relief | Not preserved at trial; court also found Article VIII (landlord maintenance) could support breach—issue rejected; implied-warranty/contract remedies available |
| Sufficiency/admissibility of evidence for implied-warranty breach (experts and documents) | Evidence (engineers, inspectors, facility testimony, documents) supports the implied-warranty finding | Key expert testimony/documents were improperly admitted; without them evidence is insufficient | Court declined to reach detailed merits because unchallenged jury findings on prior material breach independently support judgment; sufficiency issues rejected or deemed harmless |
| Whether the trial court erred in submitting/entering judgment on jury questions (questions 1–6; charge errors) | Charge questions were proper to resolve who breached first, waiver, and damages; jury answers were binding | Several questions were unnecessary, confusing, or legally improper; trial court should have disregarded answers | Appellant inadequately briefed many charge complaints and failed to preserve some objections; most charge/answer challenges overruled; answers binding |
| Entitlement to and sufficiency of attorney's fees (trial and appellate) | UT sought contractual fees as prevailing party; introduced fee testimony to support amounts | Rohrmoos argued UT was not a "prevailing party" (no damages), fees unsupported (no billing records, lodestar not applied), and amounts unreasonable | UT was vindicated (defeated Rohrmoos's counterclaim), so was prevailing under lease; evidence (witness testimony including opposing counsel) supported fee awards; lodestar/time records not required here; fee award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Davidow v. Inwood N. Prof’l Grp.-Phase 1, 747 S.W.2d 373 (Tex. 1988) (recognizing implied warranty of suitability for commercial leases)
- International Group P’ship v. KB Home Lone Star, L.P., 295 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009) (defining when a party has achieved "genuine success" for prevailing-party analysis)
- Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. 2000) (preservation of charge complaints and how an unobjected charge frames appellate review)
- El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2012) (lodestar discussion and when lodestar/time records are required for fee proof)
- City of Laredo v. Montano, 414 S.W.3d 731 (Tex. 2013) (clarifying El Apple’s limits; lodestar not mandatory in all fee cases)
- Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997) (listing factors to evaluate reasonableness of attorney’s fees)