Lott v. Brown
| Decision Date | 28 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. 12-17-00093-CV,12-17-00093-CV |
| Parties | LARRY LOTT, D/B/A LARRY LOTT INTERIORS, APPELLANT v. BOBBY BROWN, APPELLEE |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Larry Lott appeals the trial court's judgment and award of damages rendered against him for breach of contract and quantum meruit to Bobby Brown. Lott challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and suggest a remittitur of a portion of the damages awarded in the trial court's judgment.
Lott is an interior designer who provides his expertise in both remodeling projects and home decorations. In such capacity, a wealthy individual hired Lott to oversee an expansive home remodeling project. Lott contacted Brown in January 2013 and requested that he submit a bid for specialized painting, plaster, and accent molding work in various areas of the home. Brown performed previous work for Lott and was well regarded in the community for his artistic, painting, and craftsman skills. After Lott provided information regarding the scope of work the client requested, Brown submitted a proposal to which Lott agreed.
Brown began work on the project in February 2013, and over the next eighteen months, he performed extensive painting, plastering, molding, and other specialized detail work throughout the house. During this period, the scope and amount of work the client wanted Brown to do increased and changed to the point that Brown's original proposal was less than one-third of the money he ultimately received for the services he provided. Though Brown's original proposal included an initial "draw," which Lott paid to Brown before work commenced, Brown's practice was to bill Lott only when he completed a particular task, at which time Lott paid Brown for the completed task.
At some point during the project, Brown became increasingly frustrated with what he perceived as Lott's pattern of arbitrarily reducing invoices he submitted for completed work, with reductions totaling $56,000 over the course of the project. Brown's frustration climaxed when Lott delayed paying Brown for elaborate art work he painted on a ceiling in the home. Subsequently, Brown approached Lott's client directly for payment, and after receiving the client's check for that completed task, Brown packed up his equipment and ceased further work.
The next day, Brown returned to the residence and conducted a "walk through" with his foreman, Mitchell Zagal, to assess and document his incomplete tasks, as well as those he completed but had not yet submitted an invoice to Lott. Thereafter, Brown delivered to Lott a list of eight tasks that assigned a monetary value for the amount Brown sought for each task. For an uncompleted task on the list, Brown identified its percentage of completion. The list totaled $27,160. Lott ultimately hired Zagal to complete Brown's remaining tasks, with the notable exception of a special mural of Stevie Nicks1 that Brown was in the process of painting at the time he ceased work.
After Lott refused to pay the amount demanded, Brown filed suit alleging that Lott breached their contract by failing to pay for the work performed and seeking damages. Brown alternatively alleged that he should be compensated for the value of the work performed under a quantum meruit theory. Lott filed a counterclaim alleging that Brown breached their agreement by ceasing work without cause, forcing Lott to incur additional costs to finish the tasks Brown left uncompleted by hiring Zagal.
The matter proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found that an agreement existed between the parties for the work Brown provided, that both Lott and Brown breached the agreement, and that Lott breached the agreement first. The jury awarded Brown the sum of $28,560 in damages under both the breach of contract and quantum meruit damage theories. In addition, the jury awarded Brown attorney's fees in the amount of $17,309. The jury did not award Lott any damages for Brown's breach of the agreement. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Brown for $28,560 in actual damages and $17,309 in attorney's fees plus costs. Lott filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court overruled. This appeal followed.
Lott complains on appeal that the evidence is both legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's damages award. Brown initially responds that Lott failed to properly preserve his sufficiency challenges. Because preservation of error is a prerequisite to challenging both the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, we first address whether Lott preserved these issues for appellate review.
To make a proper objection that preserves error for review, a party must raise a valid, specific, and timely objection or motion during the trial court proceedings that apprises the trial court of the argument in a way that calls for the trial court to decide that issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Redwine v. Peckinpaugh, 535 S.W.3d 44, 51 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, no pet.). The only way to preserve factual sufficiency challenges after a jury trial is in a motion for new trial. TEX. R. CIV. P. 324(b)(2); Cecil v. Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Tex. 1991). A motion for new trial is one of four ways a legal sufficiency challenge can be preserved. Cecil, 804 S.W.2d at 510-11.
Lott sought to preserve his legal and factual sufficiency challenges through a motion for new trial. In that motion, Lott claimed the jury's answers to the questions awarding Brown contractual and quantum meruit damages (Questions five and seven of the charge) are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence and that the evidence at trial established as a matter of law that Brown was not entitled to recover damages related to the Stevie Nicks mural included on Brown's list of unfinished work. As relief, Lott sought a new trial or alternatively, a remittitur.2
Brown disputes that Lott's motion for new trial properly preserved error as to factual sufficiency because the motion asserted only that the jury's responses to the damages questions were against the great weight of the evidence. In his brief, Lott acknowledges using incorrect terminology in the motion but urges that a liberal reading of the motion reflects an argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's damages award and therefore, preserved factual sufficiency error.3 We interpret Brown's position as being that Lott failed to preserve error because his assertion that the jury's answers to the damages questions were against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence was too broad or general to merit consideration.
Judicial economy requires that the trial court have the opportunity to correct an error before an appeal proceeds. In re C.O.S., 988 S.W.2d 760, 765 (Tex. 1999). The purpose of a motion for new trial is to provide the trial court with such an opportunity. Gerdes v. Kennamer, 155 S.W.3d 523, 532 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2004, pet. denied). Each ground relied upon in a motion for new trial "shall briefly refer to that part of the ruling of the court . . . in such a way that the objection can be clearly identified and understood by the court." TEX. R. CIV. P. 321. Further, "[g]rounds of objections couched in general terms—as that the court erred in its charge, in sustaining and overruling exceptions to the pleadings, and in excluding or admitting evidence, the verdict is contrary to law, and the like—shall not be considered by the court." TEX. R. CIV. P. 322. On the other hand, the Texas Supreme Court has explained, a general "no evidence" complaint directed to a specific jury issue is usually sufficient to preserve error without further detail as to why the evidence is insufficient. Arkoma Basin Exploration Co. v. FMF Assocs. 1990-A, Ltd., 249 S.W.3d 380, 387 (Tex. 2008). Similarly, while a single no evidence objection to "all 79 jury answers [would be] too general, the same objection addressed to each individual issue is adequate." Id. (citing Biggers v. Cont'l Bus. Sys., Inc., 157 Tex. 351, 303 S.W.2d 359, 368 (Tex. 1957)). And, while acknowledging that "[i]f a single jury question involves many issues, it is possible that a general objection may not tell the trial court where to start," the supreme court has emphasized that such a post-trial objection is not necessarily insufficiently specific considering the context in which it is made, as "post-trial objections will rarely be as detailed as an appellate brief because time is short, the record may not be ready, and the trial court is already familiar with the case." Id. at 388. Further, the court has stressed, "[l]ike all other procedural rules, those regarding the specificity of post-trial objections should be construed liberally so that the right to appeal is not lost unnecessarily." Id. The "cardinal rule" for error preservation, after all, is simply that "an objection must be clear enough to give the trial court an opportunity to correct it." Id. at 387.
Though Lott's motion for new trial mischaracterized the basis for his attack on the damages questions, assertions that the evidence was "insufficient" or "against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence" are both generally classified as issues challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence. See W. Wendell Hall, Standards of Review in Texas, 38 St. Mary's L.J. 47, 261 (2006). Lott specifically identified the jury questions he contended were not supported by the evidence and asserted the evidence presented at trial did not support the damages award. Though the motion could have been more specific, we hold it was sufficient to preserve error on his factual sufficiency issues. See Superior Trucks, Inc. v. Allen, 664 S.W.2d 136, 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
Likewise, we conclude Lott preserved...
To continue reading
Request your trial