United States Catastrophic Re-Constructors, Inc. and Gary Corbin v. David Spencer D/B/A Control Collective, Ltd.
05-14-01150-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 13, 2015Background
- USCR (contractor) sued Spencer (property owner) seeking enforcement of liens and recovery of $131,724 (including $24,800 for "extra painting," $32,000 for extra roof work, $28,400 overhead, $28,400 profit, and $28,124 sales tax) plus attorney’s fees; Spencer counterclaimed but later nonsuited counterclaims and third‑party claims.
- The parties had three written documents: a Roof Contract (fixed price for ~35,511 sq ft), a Remodel Contract (fixed price for specified interior work), and an Insurance Contract with an integration clause requiring written changes.
- USCR alleged (and Corbin, USCR’s owner, testified) Spencer asked USCR to perform additional interior painting and additional roof repairs (total roof ~42,000 sq ft) outside the written contracts and agreed to pay for that extra work orally.
- Spencer moved for traditional and no‑evidence summary judgment arguing: the written contracts fixed price/scope barred recovery for extra work absent a written change; and there was no evidence of an enforceable agreement for overhead, profit, or sales tax.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Spencer without stating grounds; USCR appealed. Corbin’s appeal was resolved against him because he sought no affirmative relief.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment as to lien foreclosure, mechanic’s lien enforcement, quantum valebant, and suit on a sworn account (claims not challenged on appeal), reversed summary judgment as to claims for extra painting and extra roof repair, and affirmed as to overhead, profit, and sales tax claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment properly barred recovery for alleged extra interior painting (breach of contract and quantum meruit) | USCR: Corbin’s deposition shows Spencer requested and agreed to pay for additional painting separate from Remodel Contract | Spencer: Written Remodel Contract required any changes in writing; no written addendum or other evidence of an enforceable agreement | Reversed as to extra painting—genuine fact issues exist about an oral agreement and quantum meruit entitlement |
| Whether summary judgment properly barred recovery for alleged extra roof repair (~5,000 sq ft) (breach and quantum meruit) | USCR: Corbin’s testimony shows Spencer wanted entire roof repaired and agreed to pay for additional footage beyond contract scope | Spencer: Roof Contract fixed price/scope; no written change; Spencer’s affidavit denies consent to extra work | Reversed as to extra roof repair—genuine fact issues exist about an oral agreement and quantum meruit entitlement |
| Whether summary judgment properly barred recovery for USCR’s claimed overhead, profit, and sales tax | USCR: Billed Spencer and insurer paid proceeds; Corbin claimed authority to negotiate insurer payment including overhead/profit | Spencer: Contracts silent or prohibit unwritten price changes; no written approval for these charges; affidavit denies agreement | Affirmed—no evidence of a valid contract or enforceable oral agreement for overhead, profit, or sales tax |
| Whether summary judgment on lien foreclosure, mechanic’s lien, quantum valebant, and sworn account claims was erroneous | USCR did not challenge these on appeal | Spencer argued those grounds in trial court | Affirmed—USCR failed to challenge these grounds on appeal, so judgment stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Masterson v. Diocese of Nw. Tex., 422 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (no‑evidence summary judgment standard)
- Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (movant’s burden for traditional summary judgment)
- Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi, 832 S.W.2d 39 (Tex. 1992) (elements of quantum meruit)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. S.S., 858 S.W.2d 374 (Tex. 1993) (appellate review may affirm on any meritorious ground advanced by movant)
- Nall v. Plunkett, 404 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2013) (trial court cannot grant summary judgment on grounds not presented by movant)