United Residential Properties, L.P., William Maxwell and Tiffany Tallent v. Tom and Dwana Theis
378 S.W.3d 552
Tex. App.2012Background
- The Theises sued United Residential Properties, L.P. (URP), William Maxwell, and Tiffany Tallent for fraud and DTPA misrepresentations after purchasing a mold-infested manufactured home from URP.
- The home had mold issues; Nelda Enriquez, a prior owner, testified a man named McCarty claimed to work for URP and offered bribes to keep quiet about the mold.
- The trial court found in favor of the Theises on fraud and DTPA theories, awarding economic damages, exemplary damages for unconscionable conduct, and attorney’s fees.
- URP and associates challenged on jurisdiction, agency evidence, and attorney’s fees; the trial court issued findings of fraud and unconscionable conduct and a final judgment against the appellants.
- The appellate court reversed and rendered, holding no evidence of agency, asserting jurisdictional rulings were proper, and denying entitlement to attorney’s fees for the appellants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to reinstate the case | Theises argued Rule 306a extensions preserved jurisdiction. | URP argued reinstatement after the 30-day deadline was void. | The trial court had jurisdiction to reinstate. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies under TMHSA | Theises contended TMHSA lacks exclusive/primary jurisdiction over non-warranty claims. | URP urged exclusive/primary jurisdiction existed. | TMHSA does not confer exclusive/primary jurisdiction for non-warranty DTPA/fraud claims. |
| Evidence of agency (McCarty as URP agent) | McCarty acted as URP’s employee/agent; URP liable for misrepresentations. | No agency relationship proven; McCarty’s statements not imputable to URP. | No evidence of actual or apparent agency; URP not liable for McCarty's misrepresentations. |
| Attorney’s fees | Theises sought to limit fees; Maxwell argued entitlement. | Theories included breach of contract; fees improper. | Appellants not entitled to attorney’s fees; fees denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. 2002) (exclusive/primary jurisdiction and agency principles applied)
- John v. Marshall Health Servs., Inc., 58 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. 2001) ( Rule 306a timing extending jurisdiction when timely)
- Walker v. Harrison, 597 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1980) (Rule 165a deadlines are jurisdictional)