Yvonne Villalon v. Maria S. Galindo
14-14-00556-CV
| Tex. App. | May 14, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Yvonne Villalon, a tenant, fell on exterior stairs she alleges were sloped, glossy/slippery, uneven, and had a hole; she and her boyfriend had informed the landlord and offered to help repair them.
- Defendant/landlord Maria Galindo (through counsel) acknowledged responsibility to rebuild stairs but disputed that they were unreasonably dangerous; discovery responses were delayed and largely unanswered until shortly before trial.
- At trial the judge entered judgment against Villalon; the judge denied separately filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (declaring them unnecessary and referencing the final judgment instead).
- Villalon moved for new trial; defendant did not file an opposition or appear to contest the motion at the hearing; the trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal Villalon argues the trial court erred by (1) ruling against her premises-liability claim despite more than a scintilla of evidence, (2) implicitly rendering judgment on her negligence claim, (3) refusing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law in violation of Tex. R. Civ. P. 296–299a, and (4) denying her motion for new trial without an opposing response.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court ruling on premises-liability claim | Stairs were unreasonably dangerous (photographs, testimony); landlord knew or had notice; more than scintilla of evidence requires reversal and rendition for plaintiff | Trial court concluded evidence did not show an unreasonable risk from sloping stairs | Trial court ruled for defendant at trial (judgment against Villalon) |
| Implicit judgment on negligence claim | Negligence claim was not adjudicated or addressed in the judgment; omission shows sloppiness and preserves the claim on appeal | Defendant focused only on notice at trial and did not contest negligence specifically | Trial court's final judgment did not expressly address plaintiff's negligence claim (effect: judgment against plaintiff) |
| Refusal to issue Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (Rule 299a) | Requests for findings were timely filed; title ‘‘Proposed’’ should not excuse the court; failure prevented appellant from knowing grounds and harmed appellate review; trial court abused discretion | Trial court and appellee argued findings were unnecessary and that essential findings could be found in the final judgment | Trial court refused to file separate findings and issued an Order stating findings were unnecessary; judgment contained narrative comments instead of separate findings |
| Denial of motion for new trial without opposition | Defendant failed to respond or appear; by local rule/no opposition the court should have granted new trial or at least articulated a reason; denial was reversible error | No opposition filed; trial court nonetheless denied the motion | Trial court denied Villalon’s motion for new trial despite defendant not opposing it |
Key Cases Cited
- Frommer v. Frommer, 981 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (Rule 299a prohibits reciting findings of fact and conclusions of law in the judgment; separate findings promote adversarial preservation for appeal)
- Guridi v. Waller, 98 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (court reaffirming Frommer and declining to follow Hill on findings; cannot presume omitted findings)
- Gonzalez v. Razi, 338 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (findings in a judgment may be given effect when they do not conflict with separately filed findings)
- In re C.A.B., 289 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (similar discussion on effect of findings recited in a judgment versus separate findings)
- Black v. Dallas County Child Welfare Unit, 835 S.W.2d 626 (Tex. 1992) (appellate courts may imply necessary fact findings to support a trial-court judgment)
- Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 219 (Tex. 1996) (error is harmful if it prevents an appellant from properly presenting a case on appeal)
- Hill v. Hill, 971 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998) (position on whether findings in judgment suffice; discussed and distinguished in Frommer)
- Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939) (standards for setting aside defaults; cited regarding procedural defaults and relief)