Tiffany Thweatt v. Craig Dudley and Rachelle Dudley, 07-15-00008-CV

Craig and Rachelle Dudley rented residential property from Tiffany Thweatt and paid a $1,000 security deposit.
After the Dudleys surrendered possession, Thweatt withheld the deposit and did not provide an itemized list of deductions within 30 days.
The Dudleys sued in small claims court and prevailed; Thweatt appealed to the County Court at Law (CCL), which also entered judgment for the Dudleys; Thweatt appealed again.
The case involved procedural disputes over reinstatement after dismissal for want of prosecution and whether the CCL followed small-claims procedures on appeal.
At the CCL bench trial the Dudleys initially failed to introduce evidence of the required 30-day written notice to vacate; the court informed parties it intended to rule for Thweatt, the Dudleys moved to reopen evidence, and the court allowed admission of the missing evidence.
The CCL found Thweatt acted in bad faith by failing to itemize deductions and awarded treble damages and attorney’s fees; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to reinstate and try case	Dudleys: reinstatement filed within applicable deadlines; CCL had jurisdiction	Thweatt: reinstatement order signed after plenary jurisdiction lapsed; small‑claims rules should control time limits	CCL had jurisdiction; small‑claims procedural limits do not apply on de novo appeal; order reinstating was signed within Rule 165a period
Reopening evidence after trial	Dudleys: reopening necessary to supply missing 30‑day notice evidence; no prejudice	Thweatt: trial court erred; Rule 270 inapplicable or requirements unmet	Granting reopening was within trial court’s broad discretion under Rule 270 and did not abuse that discretion
Obligation to refund deposit (proof of notice)	Dudleys: after reopening they proved they gave 30‑day written notice, entitlement to refund	Thweatt: Dudleys failed to prove required notice so no obligation to return deposit	Sufficient evidence (after reopening) supported the trial court’s implicit finding that notice was given; judgment for Dudleys affirmed
Bad faith and treble damages	Dudleys: Thweatt failed to itemize deductions and thus is presumed to have acted in bad faith, entitling them to treble damages and fees	Thweatt: acted in good faith; provided a description and total cost	Thweatt did not rebut the statutory presumption of bad faith (no itemized costs, no testimony); court properly awarded treble damages and attorney’s fees

Smith v. State, 959 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. App. — Waco 1997) (legislative amendment presumptively changes prior law)
McCuen v. Huey, 255 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. App. — Waco 2008) (standard for reviewing reopening evidence is abuse of discretion)
Saunders v. Lee, 180 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App. — Waco 2005) (discretion to reopen evidence should be exercised liberally to allow full development of the case)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (trial court abuses discretion when it acts arbitrarily or contrary to guiding principles)
Pulley v. Milberger, 198 S.W.3d 418 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2006) (presumption of bad faith for failure to timely itemize security‑deposit deductions and the landlord’s burden to rebut)
In re Estate of Huff, 15 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2000) (when reopening is allowed, trial court must permit both sides to fully develop the case)