322 S.W.3d 342
Tex. App.
2010

OPINION

SUSAN LARSEN, Justice (former).

This appeal involves a breach of contract that was originally heard in Justice of the Peace Court, and appealed de novo to County Court at Law Number Three of El Paso County. In fоur related issues, Defendant/Appellant David Somers challenges the trial court’s granting of summary judgment against him, the failure to grant summary judgment for him, and the granting of attorneys’ fees. We affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The history оf this case in Justice of the Peace Court is confused. Plaintiffs/Appel-lees Alberto and Celia Aranda filed cause number 406-123JC in justice court, claiming that Somers owed them $3,000 for breach оf contract stemming from the purchase of a Q2 energy spa machine. On June 6, 2006, the justice of the peace initially entered a take-nothing judgment in that case noting that plaintiffs had not appeared. Plaintiffs did not appeal this ruling, but instead filed another case urging the same facts under cause number 406-427S. The justice of the peace dismissed the second casе stating 08-08-00289-CV “406-427SC DISMISSED due to duplicate case having been filed under 406-123JC. New trial granted. Trial on the merits heard in cause #406-128JC.” On September 12, 2006 a trial was held in cause number 406-123JC, resulting in judgment for plaintiffs in the amount of $3,040 рlus court costs. Defendant Som-ers appealed this judgment to County Court at Law Number Three.

In the county court, Defendant Somers filed two motions for summary judgment. Both were denied. Plaintiffs also filеd a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The trial court entered judgment for plaintiffs in the amount of $3,000 plus $2,550 in attorneys’ fees. This appeal follows. Plaintiffs/Appellees have declined to file a brief on appeal.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment

In his first and second issues on appeal, Somers argues that the trial court erred in denying his second motion for summary judgment. In both issues, ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‍he argues that his summаry judgment was based upon deemed admissions, which the trial court erred in allowing plaintiffs to withdraw. We disagree.

On October 11, 2007, the trial court held a hearing on the motion for summary judgment. Before thе summary judgment was taken up, plaintiffs’ counsel presented argument and evidence regarding defendant’s requests for admission, including a copy of plaintiffs’ responses, file stamped by the сounty clerk on March 29, 2007. Thus there was evidence before the trial court that plaintiffs had filed these responses less than thirty days after they had been served with them, but for some reason the responses had been misplaced after receipt by the county clerk.

Moreover, plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside any deemed admissions. The motion stated that: (1) before plaintiffs hired counsel, they had filed responses to the requests pro se, but could not remember whether they had served them upon defendant; (2) plaintiffs had relied upon advice of justice сourt personnel in filing the responses; (3) defendant would not be prejudiced by the withdrawal of any deemed admissions, as he was fully aware of plaintiffs’ position on the issues, as the case had already been tried once in justice court; and (4) the merits of the breach of contract would be decided by the trier of fact if the deemed admissions were withdrawn.

The trial cоurt made the following ruling regarding the admissions:

All right. It appears to the Court that there’s some mistake somewhere. There should only be one file. It appears that they responded to thе requests for admissions within the time prescribed by law. If in fact there is two separate files, you have filed a request to set aside — I don’t think there’s a need for that. But if there is, the Court will grant your relief and set aside. But I don’t believe that you need it, because there is a response to the requests for admissions.
[[Image here]]
And if there is a response to the request for admissions, then the motion for summary judgment, based upon ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‍the fact that the request or admissions were not filed, is denied, because there is a response, okay?

We find the trial court was well within its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, as it found that: (1) there were no deemed admissions, as responses had been filed within 30 days after service; and (2) alternatively, there were grounds to set aside deemed admissiоns if they existed. Under Tex.R. Civ. P. 198.3 this ruling was not error. Issues One and Two are overruled.

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment

In his Issue Three, Appellant Som-ers urges that the trial court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ motion set out that а contract, titled “General Agreement” and drafted by Somers, had been entered into by the parties. The agreement read as follows:

Both parties come in agreement that Celia Aranda shall make available funds totaling $3040.00 for the purchase of (1) one Q2 Energy Spa. This Q2 Energy Spa shall be for use by Celia Aranda and her extended family at no cost. David Somers agrees to purchase and operate the Q2 for their benefit with said funds and for the benefit of others outside of family members for a fair and reasonable charge. David Somers shall cоllect a fee from non-family members to cover cost of operation and repayment of the funds to Celia Aranda outlined in this agreement.
Purchase of the unit will be from Optimal Health located in Sedona, Arizona who is an authorized dealer of the Q2 Health Spa. This unit shall be shipped via Fed-Ex to El Paso, Texas.
Signed as an agreement on the 18th Day of June 2005.

Affidavits from both plaintiffs, dated June 27, 2008, state that “[t]he terms of the contract were to advance money to Mr. Somers for the purchase of a Q2 Energy Spa and that Mr. Somers would repay the funds.... To date Mr. Somers has not repaid the funds for the Q2 Energy Spa.” Defendant Somers responded to the motion by urging that the agreement did not reflect a loan, but rather an investment by plaintiffs, from which they would be repaid only from fees chаrged to the general public. Defendant did not present any evidence in support of this argument, nor did defendant plead any affirmative defenses.

We believe that summary judgment for plaintiffs was properly entered in this cause. Taking the plaintiffs’ uncon-troverted affidavits together with the contract ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‍itself, there is sufficient definiteness as to the material terms of the contract so as to enable the trial court to ascertain the parties’ intentions. Inimitable Group v. Westwood Group Develop., 264 S.W.3d 892, 899 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.). Which terms are material is determined on a case by case basis. Id. Sоmers complains that the contract does not contain the elements necessary to enforce a promissory note, including maturity date, repayment terms, and interest rate. We note initially that the judgment awarded no interest, so that element is not material. Although the agreement does not contain a maturity date or repayment schedule, the plaintiffs еstablished by affidavit that a full three years had elapsed without any repayment. The court may presume the parties intended to impose reasonable terms. David J. Sacks, P.C. v. Haden, 266 S.W.3d 447, 448-50 (Tex.2008). We further note thаt this is a suit for money damages, not specific performance, and less certainty is needed to render it enforceable. Ski River Dev., Inc. v. McCal-la, 167 S.W.3d 121, 133 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005, pet. denied). Finally, the law favоrs finding agreements sufficiently definite for enforcement where one side has already performed its side of the bargain. Amer ica’s Favorite Chicken Co. v. Samaras, 929 S.W.2d 617, 623-24 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, writ denied). Somers’ third issue is overruled.

Attorneys’ fees

In his fourth issue, Somеrs argues that the trial court erred ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‍in granting plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. We disagree.

Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. Ch. 38.001, a party may recover reasonable attorney’s fees from an individual or corpоration, in addition to the amount of a valid claim and costs, if the claim is for an oral or written contract and the claiming party: (1) is represented by an attorney; (2) has presented thе claim to the opposing party or to a duly authorized agent of the opposing party; and (3) payment for the just amount owed is not tendered before the expiration of 30 days. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. §§ 38.001(8) and 38.002 (Vernon 2008). Moreover, in attorney’s fee claims under this chapter, the court may take judicial notice of the usual and customary fees and the contents of the case file without receiving further evidence in a proceeding before the court. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 38.004. Where a case originally brought in justice court is appеaled to the county court, a claim for attorney’s fees under Chapter 38 may be pleaded for the first time in county court. Crumpton v. Stevens, 936 S.W.2d 473, 476 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, no writ). A claim for attorney’s fees under this сhapter does not constitute an independent ground of recovery but rather is in the nature of incidental damages and is not a new ground for recovery prohibited by Tex.R. Civ. P. 574a. Id.

Here, рlaintiffs first hired counsel after the case had been appealed from justice court. They filed an amended petition containing a request for attorney’s fees under the Texаs Civil Practice and Remedies Code. They prevailed on summary judgment, obtaining damages. Summary judgment is a proceeding before the court. Plaintiffs also made a motion for award of attorney’s fees, which was served upon defendant, setting out counsel’s hourly rate and hours worked. Defendant did not respond to this motion. The court was entitled to take judicial notice of usual and customary fees, as well as the contents of the court’s file in determining an attorney’s fee award. Defendant had notice that attorney’s fees were requested, he made no response to that request, and the award was appropriate under Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 38.001. No error is ‍​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‍shown and Issue Four is overruled.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

LARSEN, J. (sitting by assignment).