S.T.N. Properties, Ltd. v. Rio Grande Valley All Tune & Lube, Inc. and Bennett Abbitt, 13-13-00706-CV

STN Properties, Ltd. built and leased commercial premises to All Tune & Lube in 1996; RGV acquired the franchise and entered a new 10‑year lease with STN in 2001. Bennett Abbitt personally guaranteed the lease.
Lease required RGV to return the premises “as good condition as existed on the date of Lessee’s possession, ordinary wear and tear excepted,” and imposed a quarterly CAM fee (additional rent).
RGV vacated after the lease expired in 2011; STN sought over $20,000 for repairs, unpaid CAM and rent, and alleged a Property Code violation for attempted application of the security deposit.
Trial was a bench trial; the court entered a take‑nothing judgment for RGV. STN appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence on breach (property damage and unpaid CAM), statutory liability under Tex. Prop. Code § 93.010, and entitlement to attorney’s fees.
Key disputed facts: condition of premises at initial possession (no walk‑through evidence), condition at vacation (photos and conflicting testimony), whether RGV tendered payment or instructed application of security deposit for CAM, and the parties’ practices on ordinary post‑tenant maintenance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence legally sufficient to prove RGV breached lease by failing to return premises in same condition	STN: premises were returned damaged; STN proved $17,917 in repair costs	RGV: no proof of condition at lease start; changes could be ordinary wear and tear; RGV maintained premises	Held for RGV — evidence insufficient to prove breach for property damage
Whether RGV breached by failing to pay final quarterly CAM (additional rent)	STN: RGV owed $1,542.13 CAM and failed to pay, leaving unpaid rent/fees	RGV: tendered $42.13 and instructed use of $1,500 deposit; some evidence payment was provided; STN refused deposit application	Held for RGV — STN failed to prove unpaid CAM breached lease
Whether tenant violated Tex. Prop. Code § 93.010 by applying security deposit to CAM fee	STN: Abbitt’s attempt to apply deposit to CAM violates statute and triggers treble damages/fees	RGV: § 93.010 prohibits withholding the last month’s rent only, not other charges like CAM	Held for RGV — § 93.010 applies to last month’s rent; not implicated here
Entitlement to attorney’s fees	STN: prevailing party under lease or statute is entitled to fees	RGV: STN did not prevail; no statutory basis	Held for RGV — no fees awarded to STN because judgment affirmed for defendant

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal‑sufficiency standard and reviewing evidence favorably to factfinder)
Pagel v. Whatley, 82 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002) (bench trial legal‑sufficiency review analogous to jury verdict review)
Sixth RMA Partners, L.P. v. Sibley, 111 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. 2003) (implied findings when no requested findings of fact and conclusions of law)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (plaintiff with burden must prove all vital facts as a matter of law on appeal)
Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1989) (appellate burden when attacking legal sufficiency)
Doss v. Homecomings Fin. Network, Inc., 210 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006) (elements of breach of contract claim)
City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2006) (statutory construction principles)
Aguiar v. Segal, 167 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (attorney’s fees under property code remedies)
B & S Welding LLC Work Related Injury Plan v. Olivia‑Barron, 447 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (factfinder’s role in bench trials)