Shamoun v. Shough
377 S.W.3d 63
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Landlord leased residence to Tenant for one year from Aug 26, 2004 to Aug 31, 2005 at monthly rent $4,800.
- Tenant paid $35,529 at signing, consisting of security deposit $4,800, pet deposit $1,000, six months’ advance rent, and prorated Aug 2004 rent.
- Lease allowed deductions from the security deposit for damages (not wear and tear) and granted Tenant option to purchase; required 30/45-day notice provisions regarding move-out and marketing.
- Tenant vacated before July 21, 2005; Landlord sold the home in July 2005; Tenant did not pay July rent and security deposit was not refunded.
- Tenant filed suit Oct 2005 asserting statutory, contract, and related claims; jury found Landlord did not breach the lease and awarded damages to Tenant’s detriment; the trial court entered a judgment for Landlord for $11,400 plus fees; on appeal the court modified the judgment under Texas Property Code §§ 92.108, 92.109 to $13,400 and affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract—are the jury’s findings consistent and supported? | Shamoun argues jury findings are irreconcilable and not supported. | Shough contends findings are reconcilable and supported by evidence. | No fatal conflict; findings are supported. |
| Damages for breach of contract—sufficiency of evidence and method of calculation | Shamoun contends damages and method are improper given Landlord’s non-breach finding. | Shough argues damages fall within evidence and are properly calculated. | Evidence supports damages range; damages properly awardable. |
| Statutory claims—bad faith findings under Chapter 92 (security deposits) | Shamoun contends Tenant’s conduct cannot support bad-faith findings; Landlord’s actions were bad faith. | Shough argues both sides had evidence; only Tenant acted in bad faith. | Legally and factually sufficient evidence shows Tenant acted in bad faith; Landlord did not. |
| Judgment modification under 92.108/92.109 and credit for deposits | Request to credit for remaining security deposit and adjust triple-damages accordingly was miscalculated. | Modification corrects calculation errors; no additional credit due. | Modify judgment to $13,400 for Landlord; no further changes. |
| Attorney’s fees preservation | Cross-issue on attorney’s fees preserved via post-trial motions. | Issue not preserved for review because not raised to trial court; stipulation supports lower award. | Landlord’s cross-issue not preserved; affirm judgment consistent with stipulation. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard for reviewing evidence; scintilla test)
- Continental Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1996) (evidentiary sufficiency standard; more than a scintilla needed)
- Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986) (standard for reviewing factual sufficiency; not overturning unless clearly wrong)