Stovall & Associates, P.C. v. Hibbs Financial Center, Ltd.
409 S.W.3d 790
Tex. App.2013Background
- Stovall & Associates leased suite 201 under a written 24-month lease (Oct 1, 2008–Sept 30, 2010) for $2,135/month and then occupied seven additional suites at various dates without fully executed leases.
- Parties prepared but did not sign a lease covering suites 201, 217, 307, and 309; letters of intent exist for other suites. Stovall paid combined rents in varying amounts and vacated in early August 2010 without paying August–September 2010 rent.
- HFC sued for unpaid rent ($37,943.77 claimed) and attorney’s fees; Stovall counterclaimed under the DTPA and pleaded the statute of frauds as a defense.
- The trial court denied Stovall’s summary-judgment motion, granted HFC’s motion (awarding $25,136.83 unpaid rent), overruled hearsay objections to HFC’s affidavits, and later awarded HFC $35,000 in attorney’s fees after a bench trial on fees.
- On appeal Stovall challenged (1) admissibility and probative force of HFC’s affidavit evidence and (2) the trial court’s rejection of its statute-of-frauds defense and (3) reasonableness of attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stovall) | Defendant's Argument (HFC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HFC proved existence/enforceability of contracts for additional suites | No enforceable contract for additional suites; unsigned lease barred by statute of frauds; factual disputes remain | Oral agreements (or writings/emails/LOIs and partial performance) established terms and rent due for additional suites | Affirmed: oral agreements for six suites not within statute of frauds; suite 217 removed from SOF by partial performance; summary judgment proper |
| Admissibility of HFC’s affidavits (hearsay/ interested witnesses) | Affidavits contain inadmissible hearsay and were from interested witnesses; trial court should not have relied on them | Objections were general; affidavits contain admissible portions and objections waived for lack of specificity | Affirmed: hearsay/form objections waived; admissible portions sufficed to support judgment |
| Whether genuine fact issues precluded summary judgment | Existence, scope, and purpose of increased payments (rent vs. security deposit) create fact issues | HFC’s affidavits, emails, LOIs, checks, and depositions established possession, agreed rent, breach, and damages; Stovall produced no controverting evidence | Affirmed: HFC met burden; Stovall failed to negate elements or produce controverting evidence |
| Whether attorney’s fees award was proper/reasonable | No enforceable contract, so fees improper or excessive | Prevailing party on contract claim entitled to reasonable fees under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §38.001; trial court did not abuse discretion in amount | Affirmed: HFC prevailed and trial court acted within discretion in awarding $35,000 in fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook, 354 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Sysco Food Servs., Inc. v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. 1994) (movant’s burden on traditional summary judgment)
- Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. 2001) (purpose of the statute of frauds)
- Bank of Tex., N.A. v. Gaubert, 286 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (partial performance as equity-based exception to statute of frauds)
- Exxon Corp. v. Breezevale Ltd., 82 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002) (requirements for partial performance corroborating an oral agreement)
- Hooks v. Bridgewater, 229 S.W. 1114 (Tex. 1921) (traditional partial-performance test in real estate cases)
- Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P., 244 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (plaintiff must establish every element for summary judgment)
- Carmack v. Beltway Dev. Co., 701 S.W.2d 37 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985) (lessor may enforce oral lease where lessor performed and lessee accepted benefits)