Richardson v. SV Almeda I Ltd. P'ship
| Decision Date | 29 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | NO. 01-11-01004-CV,01-11-01004-CV |
| Parties | STEVEN KELLEY RICHARDSON, MICHELLE RICHARDSON, AND RICHARD DAY, Appellants v. SV ALMEDA I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appellants Steven Kelly Richardson, Michelle Richardson, and Richard Day sued appellee SV Almeda I Limited Partnership, asserting various causes of action related to their alleged constructive eviction from an apartment. Almedacounterclaimed for accelerated rent, repayment of rental concessions, and attorney's fees. The trial court granted summary judgment in Almeda's favor, ruling that the appellants take nothing by their claims and awarding Almeda damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the appellants bring eight issues contesting the trial court's take-nothing summary judgment on each of their causes of action and the trial court's summary judgment for Almeda on its counterclaim. We reverse the trial court's judgment in part as to the award of attorney's fees. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects.
Steven and Michelle Richardson visited the Equinox Apartments to inquire about renting an apartment. The apartment complex is owned by Almeda, and it is located near the medical center in Houston, Texas. The Richardsons met the apartment manager, Susan Franz. During this conversation, they told her that their occupations—emergency helicopter pilot and emergency room nurse—required that they work irregular hours. They therefore required an apartment that would be quiet enough to allow them to sleep night or day, and they asked if the apartments were noisy. Michelle said that Franz "reassured me countless times that it was a quiet place." Michelle never put her concerns about noise in writing; Franz never put her representations that the apartment was quiet in writing, either. Accordingto the Richardsons, Franz recommended apartment 175, a ground-floor apartment near a meditation fountain, which she told them would be a quiet area.
Michelle also had concerns about the security of the apartment complex, and she conceded that she knew it was not a crime-free area before she signed the lease. However, she said that Franz assured her about the safety of the apartment complex saying that "there wasn't crime," that "it was a secure property," and because "it was a gated community . . . the only people that could come in and out were with the remote gates . . . ."
The Richardsons also told Franz that Michelle's father, Richard Day, would be living with them, and that he was a disabled Vietnam veteran. They requested a ground-floor apartment, telling Franz that Day's back and knee problems required such access as well as an accessible parking spot. Although Day testified that he had no input into the choice of the apartment, he testified that the apartment manager represented that the apartment was "very quiet, very peaceful" and suitable for his needs. Day also told Franz that he would need an accessible parking spot, and he testified that he had no complaints about the availability of suitable parking. Nobody informed Franz or any other representative of Almeda that Day suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. None of the appellants ever made a written request for accommodations for Day's disabilities.
The Richardsons and Day all signed the lease agreement. The term of the lease was from February 9, 2009 to March 29, 2010, and thereafter it would automatically continue month-to-month unless either party gave written notice 60 days before termination. The lease included several provisions that would entitle a tenant to terminate without penalty, including (1) delay of occupancy caused by construction, repairs, cleaning or a prior resident's holding over, (2) provisions applicable to military personnel, (3) breach of certain responsibilities owed by Almeda and in accordance with Section 92.056 of the Texas Property Code, and (4) moving out after giving proper notice at the expiration of a lease term. However, the lease also provided that if those termination provisions did not apply,
Under the lease, failure to pay rent, violation of the lease or any apartment rules, and abandonment of the apartment are among the actions that would constitute default by the resident. The lease provided that "[a]ll monthly rent for the rest of the Lease Contract term" would be "accelerated automatically" and immediately due if the tenant moved out without consent and without paying all rent for the entire lease term. The lease specifically stated that Almeda "may report unpaid amounts to credit agencies," and it reserved the right to exercise "all other legal remedies" in the event of a tenant's default.
The lease included several other provisions that are relevant to the parties' eventual dispute. With respect to the tenants' conduct while living in the apartment, it provided:
Two separate sections of the lease included provisions addressing safety and security. The following provisions appeared in the section of the lease entitled "While You're Living in the Apartment":
The section of the lease entitled "Security Guidelines for Residents" included the following provision:
36. SECURITY GUIDELINES. We care about your safety and that of other occupants and guests. No security system is failsafe. Even the best system can't prevent crime. Always act as if security systems don't exist since they are subject to malfunction, tampering, and human error. We disclaim any express or implied warranties of security. The best safety measures are the ones you perform as a matter of common sense and habit.
(Emphasis in original.) Paragraph 36 also urged adherence to 20 specific crime-prevention tips listed in the lease agreement.
In addition, the lease included a merger clause, disclaiming any oral promises or representations by the apartment's representatives:
33. MISCELLANEOUS. Neither we nor any of our representatives have made any oral promises, representations, or agreements. This Lease Contract is the entire agreement between you and us. Our representatives (including management personnel, employees, andagents) have no authority to waive, amend, or terminate this Lease Contract or any part of it, unless in writing, and no authority to make promises, representations, or agreements that impose security duties or other obligations on us or our representatives unless in writing. . . . Written notice to or from our managers constitutes notice to or from us. Any person giving a notice under this Lease Contract should retain a copy of the memo, letter, or fax that was given, as well as any fax transmittal verification. Fax or electronic signatures are binding. All notices must be signed. Notices may not be given by email or other electronic transmission.
(Emphasis in original.)
Initially, Michelle loved the apartment. She said:
When we moved in, when we first went—I'm not gonna lie, I fell in love with the apartments. They are beautiful. I was very happy to move there, very happy with everything about the apartments. . . . [W]hen we first moved in, it was quiet, before the neighbors moved in. It was nice, wonderful.
But then, noisy neighbors moved into apartment 174, which was next door to the appellants' apartment. According to the Richardsons, the residents of apartment 174 played loud music and hosted parties until the early morning hours. Michelle also complained about the noise of sexual activity occurring in the neighboring apartment, which she described as "constant."
Neither of the Richardsons ever spoke to the neighbors about the noise or left any notes. They did not know...
To continue reading
Request your trial