Trevino & Associates Mechanical, L.P. and Mike Trevino. Sr. v. the Frost National Bank
400 S.W.3d 139
Tex. App.2013Background
- Trevino & Associates Mechanical, L.P. (TAM) and Mike Trevino, Sr. appeal a final judgment dismissing their counterclaims against Frost National Bank.
- TAM’s line-of-credit loan originally $3.5 million matured in 2008, renewed to 2009; Frost Bank informed TAM of maturity and demanded payment.
- TAM alleges oral renewal/extension of the loan on June 4, 2009, and that Frost Bank agreed not to set off and to negotiate in good faith.
- Frost Bank set off $660,089.17 from TAM’s Frost Bank operating account on June 19, 2009; TAM alleges this caused layoffs and project overruns.
- Liberty Mutual, as surety for TAM’s projects, pursued a separate judgment against TAM for over $6 million.
- The trial court granted Frost Bank partial traditional summary judgment on breach of contract and then partial no-evidence and traditional judgments on TAM’s remaining counterclaims; final judgment affirmed as to TAM, and Trevino separately for lack of a brief on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| No-evidence judgment on TAM’s counterclaims proper? | TAM argues genuine fact issues exist on renewal, misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, etc. | Frost Bank contends no evidence supports TAM’s counterclaims once contract ended; evidence shows no oral renewal. | Yes; court affirmed no-evidence judgment against TAM on these counterclaims. |
| Promissory estoppel requires detrimental reliance; did TAM show this? | TAM relied on Frost Bank’s promises to continue banking and deposit funds. | TAM failed to show detrimental reliance; mere continued deposits were not a material change. | No; TAM failed to prove detrimental reliance, so promissory estoppel claim cannot survive. |
| Damages on TAM’s counterclaims were improperly addressed via traditional summary judgment? | TAM argued damages should be revisited. | Court already resolved breach of contract damages in an earlier traditional summary judgment. | Not reached on appeal; issue deemed unnecessary to decide after ruling on issue one. |
Key Cases Cited
- Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. 1970) (appellant must challenge every ground for summary judgment to obtain reversal)
- Worldwide Asset Purchasing, LLC v. Rent-A-Center E., Inc., 290 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (issues decided by partial summary judgment are final, even if interlocutory)
- Martin v. First Republic Bank, Fort Worth, 799 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1990) (interlocutory partial summary judgments are final on those issues)
- Linder v. Valero Transmission Co., 736 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1987) (interlocutory summary judgments’ issues cannot be relitigated)
- Socony Mobil Oil Co., 421 S.W.2d 427 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1967) (issues determined by partial summary judgment are final)
- 1001 McKinney Ltd v. Credit Suisse First Boston Mortg. Capital, 192 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (promissory estoppel requires evidence of detrimental reliance)