Williamson v. Howard
554 S.W.3d 59
Tex. App.2018Background
- Williamson lived in a month-to-month oral tenancy at Irving View Trailer Park; no written lease. C&R managed the park; Loran May owned it and died in 2010; title passed to High Plains Children’s Home & Family Services, Inc. (HP Home). Howard was HP Home’s executive director.
- HP Home decided to close the park; C&R handled tenant notifications and selected some tenants for relocation assistance; Williamson was ultimately relocated but disputes arose (utilities cut, sale of storage building, moving costs, higher rent elsewhere).
- Williamson sued Howard (individually and professionally), HP Home, and later HP Home Foundation in justice court alleging Property Code violations, DTPA, fraud, and constructive eviction; C&R sought to intervene.
- Justice Court granted a directed verdict for defendants; on transfer to county court, county court granted pleas to the jurisdiction for Howard and HP Home Foundation and struck C&R’s intervention; county court then granted a directed verdict for remaining defendant HP Home. Williamson appealed.
- The court framed Williamson’s many points into four main categories: (1) striking C&R’s intervention, (2) pleas to the jurisdiction for Howard and HP Home Foundation, (3) directed verdict as to HP Home (constructive eviction and DTPA), and (4) assorted other claims which the court found waived or inapplicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether C&R’s intervention should have been allowed | C&R was designated a responsible third party in JP court and thus had a justiciable interest; intervention necessary to protect C&R and to allocate fault | Designation as a responsible third party does not impose liability or create a justiciable interest; intervention would be improper absent joinder as a defendant | Court affirmed striking the intervention: designation under §33.004(i) does not create a justiciable interest for intervention; C&R lacked the necessary interest |
| Whether the county court had jurisdiction over Howard and HP Home Foundation | Parties were “inextricably intertwined” and in privity; Howard and Foundation acted as landlords or agents so jurisdiction exists | Howard and HP Home Foundation were not owners/lessors; HP Home (owner) and C&R (manager) are distinct; no landlord-tenant relationship with Howard/Foundation | Court affirmed dismissal for want of jurisdiction: Howard and HP Home Foundation were not proper parties under Property Code landlord definition |
| Whether directed verdict was improper on constructive eviction claim | Utilities were cut off causing displacement; acts or omissions by HP Home constituted constructive eviction | Plaintiff failed to prove landlord intent, material interference, permanence, or that utilities were not restored; evidence insufficient | Court affirmed directed verdict: no more than Williamson’s testimony showed utilities cut; no evidence of intent, scope, or permanence required for constructive eviction |
| Whether directed verdict was improper on DTPA and damages | Appellant alleged deceptive practices and sought economic damages for sale/move, increased rent/utilities, lost food, and property loss | Damages were speculative and unsubstantiated; owner valuation testimony requires factual basis; evidence did not rise above scintilla | Court affirmed directed verdict: DTPA requires proof of actual damages; Williamson’s valuation and damage testimony was conclusory and legally insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. 1990) (standard for intervention and justiciable interest)
- In re Union Carbide Corp., 273 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. 2008) (burden to show justiciable interest for intervenor)
- In re El Apple, Inc., 362 S.W.3d 154 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2012) (designation as responsible third party does not impose liability or bind other proceedings)
- Tex. Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for reviewing jurisdictional pleas)
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (legal-sufficiency review for directed verdict / no-evidence motions)
- Justiss v. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 397 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2013) (property-owner testimony rule: owner valuation must be factually substantiated)
- Charalambous v. Jean Lafitte Corp., 652 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1983) (constructive eviction elements and application where landlord’s acts prevented use)
- Downtown Realty, Inc. v. 509 Tremont Bldg., Inc., 748 S.W.2d 309 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988) (omission to repair utilities/HVAC can support constructive eviction in proper circumstances)