Cielo Dorado Development, Inc. v. Certainteed Corp.
| Decision Date | 20 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. C-6522,C-6522 |
| Citation | 744 S.W.2d 10 |
| Parties | CIELO DORADO DEVELOPMENT, INC., Petitioner, v. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Malcolm McGregor and Susan Larsen, Malcolm McGregor, Inc., El Paso, for petitioner.
Ralph E. Harris, El Paso, David C. Duggins and John F. Williams, Clark, Thomas, Winters & Newton, Austin, for respondent.
This case involves the question of proper notice under the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. §§ 17.41-17.63 (Vernon 1987) (DTPA). The trial court rendered judgment for Cielo Dorado Development, Inc. against Certainteed Corporation based on Cielo Dorado's DTPA claims. The court of appeals reversed that judgment based on its conclusion that Cielo Dorado failed to prove proper notice under DTPA § 17.50A(a). 733 S.W.2d 247. (The DTPA's notice provision has recently been renumbered as § 17.505(a), eff. 9/1/87.) We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand to that court for consideration of other points which it chose not to consider in its original opinion.
The facts of this case, briefly, are as follows: Certainteed sold pipe to Cielo Dorado for an irrigation system. The system failed and Cielo Dorado sued Certainteed and others. In its answer, Certainteed pleaded that Cielo Dorado failed to comply with the DTPA's notice requirement. At trial, Cielo Dorado's attorney testified, without objection, that notice had been given pursuant to the DTPA. After Cielo Dorado rested, Certainteed moved for a directed verdict on the DTPA claims based in part on Cielo Dorado's alleged failure to give notice of claim as required by the DTPA. After denying Certainteed's motion, the trial court submitted Cielo Dorado's DTPA claims to the jury. No issue on notice was requested or submitted, and Certainteed did not object to the trial court's failure to submit such an issue.
Even if we assume arguendo that notice under DTPA § 17.50A was an element of Cielo Dorado's case, Cielo Dorado's attorney testified without objection that notice was given pursuant to the DTPA. In these circumstances, Tex.R.Civ.P. 279 requires that the issue of notice under the DTPA be deemed as found by the trial court in support of its judgment. Certainteed did plead noncompliance with DTPA § 17.50A, but even if proper DTPA notice was Cielo Dorado's issue, Certainteed still had to object to its non-submission under the clear language of Rule 279:
Failure to submit an issue shall not be deemed a ground for reversal of the judgment, unless its submission, in substantially correct wording, has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment; provided, however, that objection to such failure shall suffice in such respect if the issue is one relied upon by the opposing party.
The testimony by Cielo Dorado's attorney was conclusory, but it came in without objection. We hold that constituted some evidence of proper notice under the DTPA. Again, assuming proper notice was Cielo Dorado's issue, Certainteed was required to object to its non-submission. Certainteed made no such objection, and there is some evidence to support a finding that notice was properly given under the DTPA. In these circumstances, Tex.R.Civ.P. 279 requires that the omitted issue of notice under the DTPA be deemed as found by the trial court in support of its judgment.
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and this cause is remanded for consideration of other points which the court of appeals chose not to consider in its original opinion.
GONZALEZ, J., dissents, joined by PHILLIPS, C.J., and WALLACE, J.
In my opinion, Cielo Dorado Development, Inc., failed to meet its burden of showing that the notice it gave satisfied the statutory requirements of § 17.50A(a) of the DTPA (now § 17.505(a)). Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
As a prerequisite to filing a suit under the Act, the consumer must give notice of its claim to the other side. Cail v. Service Motors, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 814, 815 (Tex.1983). The requirements of that notice are set forth in Section 17.50A(a) as follows:
As a prerequisite to filing a suit seeking damages ... against any person, a consumer shall give written notice to the person at least thirty days before filing the suit advising the person of the consumer's specific complaint and the amount of actual damages and expenses, including attorney's fees, if any, reasonably incurred by the consumer in asserting the claim against the defendant.
The purpose of the notice requirement is to facilitate the settlement of consumer complaints. The recipient is given an opportunity to negotiate the claim and settle the dispute rather than expose itself to the additional damages and attorney's fees which will result if a lawsuit is successfully prosecuted. Jim Walter Homes, Inc....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re J.F.C.
...is "some evidence" to support the finding. See Ramos v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 784 S.W.2d 667, 668 (Tex.1990); Cielo Dorado Dev., Inc. v. Certainteed Corp., 744 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Tex.1988). By marshaling the evidence to support a deemed finding against the parents under rule 279, the Court essential......
-
Hines v. Hash
...S.W.2d at 537; Certainteed Corp. v. Cielo Dorado Dev., Inc., 733 S.W.2d 247, 249 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 744 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.1988); Whitten, 717 S.W.2d at 123-24; Sunshine Datsun, 680 S.W.2d at Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the ju......
-
Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford Connecticut v. Davila
...to the jury, notice will be deemed pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 279 in accordance with the judgment. Cielo Dorado Dev., Inc. v. Certainteed Corp., 744 S.W.2d 10, 10-11 (Tex.1988). The Davilas' live trial pleading does not allege that any notice was provided to Aetna pursuant to the DTPA. Aetna ......
-
HOW Ins. Co. v. Patriot Financial Services of Texas, Inc.
...with the notice requirement. See Certainteed Corp. v. Cielo Dorado Dev., Inc. 733 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.App.1987), rev'd on other grounds, 744 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.1988); Sunshine Datsun, Inc. v. Ramsey, 680 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.App.1984, no writ); see also Schepps v. Presbyterian Hospital, 652 S.W.2d 934 (......
-
Appendix - Desk Book
...defense of “cure” is an affirmative defense which the defen dant failed to plead. Cielo Dorado Development, Inc. v. Certainteed Corp., 744 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1988). The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff failed to give the pre-filing notice as required by the DTPA. The plain tiff’s attorney ......
-
Table of Cases
...& Dwight Co. v. Huey , 961 S.W.2d 560, 568 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, pet. denied), §1.02.9.1 Cielo Dorado Dev. v. Certainteed Corp., 744 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1988), §3.02 City of Dallas v. Arnett , 762 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, writ denied), §9.20.8 City of Emerald v. Peel , 920 S.W.......
-
Giving Notice and Responding to an Offer
...Center, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 189, 191-193 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.); compare Cielo Dorado Dev. v. Certainteed Corp., 744 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1988). Section 17.505 does not require that the notice letter detail the DTPA provisions claimed to have been violated. In fact, the suffi......