Thomas A. Jamison and Thomas E. Lowe v. Lake Travis Inn and RV Park, Brenda Horton, Ronnie March, and Suzy March
03-16-00788-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Thomas Jamison and Thomas Lowe lived in an RV on property operated by Lake Travis Inn and RV Park (the Park) under a written "site service" month-to-month agreement that disclaimed a landlord–tenant relationship.
- The Park gave written notice asking Plaintiffs to vacate; Plaintiffs left and sued for unlawful eviction, withholding security deposit, harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud. Plaintiffs proceeded pro se.
- At bench trial the court excluded certain evidence and entered a take-nothing judgment for Plaintiffs; Park’s counterclaim for fees was denied and not appealed.
- On appeal Plaintiffs raised four issues: denial of a pretrial conference, exclusion of evidence and rulings limiting their presentation, judicial bias, and misapplication of law on landlord–tenant status, fraud, and security-deposit rights.
- The appellate court reviewed discretionary matters (pretrial conference, evidentiary rulings, judicial conduct) for abuse of discretion and legal claims for lack of supporting authority or proof, and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Pretrial conference | Trial court abused discretion by refusing a pretrial conference | No request for a pretrial conference was made before verdict | No abuse of discretion; issue forfeited for failure to request a setting |
| 2. Exclusion of evidence / failure to rule on motions | Court ignored motions (e.g., summary judgment) and improperly excluded records, video, HUD complaint | Motions were not set for hearing or were filed after final judgment; proffered evidence was offered late and objections sustained (relevance/hearsay) | No reversible error; appellants failed to preserve or argue admissibility and showed no harm |
| 3. Judicial bias / unfair conduct | Trial judge exhibited bias: evidentiary rulings, interruption rulings, allowing extra counsel, ignoring contrary evidence | Judicial rulings and remarks alone aren’t proof of bias; judge also assisted plaintiffs at times | No bias shown; judicial rulings/remarks insufficient to establish disqualifying prejudice |
| 4. Landlord–tenant status, fraud, security deposit | Service agreement created a landlord–tenant relationship and contained fraud; security deposit must be returned | Agreement expressly disclaimed landlord–tenant status and defined deposit/electricity terms; plaintiffs produced no authority or evidence of falsity or bad faith | No reversible error; plaintiffs failed to show material misrepresentation, knowledge/recklessness, or legal support for deposit claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (judicial rulings/remarks ordinarily do not demonstrate bias)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (same re: judicial remarks and bias)
- Southwestern Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. 2001) (elements of common-law fraud)
- Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants held to same procedural standards as attorneys)