Zorrilla v. Aypco Constr. II, LLC

• Decision Date: 12 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–0067,14–0067
• Citation: 469 S.W.3d 143
• Parties: Mirta Zorrilla, Petitioner, v. Aypco Construction II, LLC and Jose Luis Munoz, Respondents
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

469 S.W.3d 143

Mirta Zorrilla, Petitioner

v.Aypco Construction II, LLC and Jose Luis Munoz, Respondents

No. 14–0067

Supreme Court of Texas.

Argued March 26, 2015

OPINION DELIVERED: June 12, 2015

Thomas C. Wright, Wright & Close LLP, Houston, for H.E. Trans. Inc., Amicus Curiae.

Charles Roy, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Scott A. Keller, Warren Kenneth Paxton, Atty. Gen., Austin, for State of Texas, Amicus Curiae.

Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Austin, Michael G. Guajardo, Guajardo & Marks, LLP, Dallas, Peter M. Kelly, Kelly, Durham & Pittard, L.L.P., Houston, for Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Amicus Curiae.

Brandy Wingate Voss, McAllen, Maitreya Tomlinson, D. Todd Smith, Austin, Smith Law Group, PC, Kelly K. McKinnis, Edinburg, for Mirta Zorrilla, Petitioner.

Brian J. Hansen, Richard W. Fryer, Fryer & Hansen, PLLC, McAllen, J. W. Dyer, Dyer & Associates, McAllen, for Aypco Construction II, LLC and Jorge Luis Munoz, Respondents.

Opinion

Justice Guzman delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this residential construction dispute, the paramount issue on appeal is whether the statutory cap on exemplary damages is waived if not pleaded as an affirmative defense or avoidance. See Tex. R. Civ. P . 94 (requiring pleading and proof of affirmative defenses and avoidances); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.008(b) (limiting exemplary damages to the greater of $200,000 or two times economic damages plus noneconomic damages not exceeding $750,000). Our courts of appeals are split on the issue, and in this case, the lower court affirmed an exemplary damages award in excess of the statutory cap because the petitioner did not assert the cap until her motion for new trial. 421 S.W.3d 54, 68–69 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 2013). We hold the exemplary damages cap is not a “matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense” and need not be affirmatively pleaded because it applies automatically when invoked and does not require proof of additional facts. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 94. Here, the petitioner did not plead the statutory cap but she timely asserted the cap in her motion for new trial. We therefore reverse the court of appeals' judgment in part and render judgment capping exemplary damages at $200,000. We affirm the court of appeals' judgment in all other respects.

I. Background

The principal issue in this case involves a relatively straightforward matter of statutory construction, but the petitioner, Mirta Zorrilla, raises myriad other issues that are better understood with a more thorough recitation of the events giving rise to the dispute and the evolution of the complaints presented on appeal.

Aypco Construction II, L.L.C. and its owner, Jose Luis Munoz, sued Zorrilla after she refused to pay several invoices charging for construction work at two residential properties in May 2007. At trial, Zorrilla did not dispute having engaged Munoz to provide residential construction services, but she disclaimed an agreement to pay for the work billed in the May 2007 invoices.

As all parties agree, the construction project initially involved a single unfinished 3,740 square foot residence at North 23rd Street in Edinburg, Texas, which Zorrilla began constructing in 2006 with the assistance of contractors who are not parties to this litigation. By November 2006, she had become dissatisfied with the timeliness and quality of the construction work and sought other service providers. Following a business associate's recommendation, Zorrilla first contacted Munoz for the limited purpose of constructing modifications to the master bedroom and bathroom in the partially finished home.

Apparently satisfied with that work, the parties entered negotiations for construction services necessary to complete the North 23rd Street home. There is no dispute that Zorrilla agreed to pay for certain construction services, but nearly every facet of the ensuing agreement is in dispute. Among the disputed matters are the parties to the agreement, whether the agreement was written or oral, the amount Zorrilla agreed to pay, and whether modifications, additional construction projects, and work at a separate residence were included and, if so, on what terms.

At the outset, Munoz provided Zorrilla with a written estimate of $212,973 to complete the North 23rd Street residence. Although that fact is not in dispute, the parties provided the jury with markedly different versions of the events that transpired from that point forward.

According to Zorrilla, she orally agreed to the $212,973 estimate Munoz had presented to her and demanded that he complete construction within three months. Although she claimed she had never hired Aypco Construction and had only agreed to work with Munoz, she admitted that Munoz's business card, estimates, blueprints, and invoices prominently bore Aypco Construction's name and that she had made all her checks payable to Aypco. Further, despite having paid related invoices, Zorrilla categorically denied she ever requested or approved (1) any modifications to the original estimate for the North 23rd Street residence, (2) any additional construction projects on the same property, and (3) any construction work at another residence that was located on Plazas del Lago Drive in Edinburg, Texas. The only modification to the agreement Zorrilla acknowledged was an oral agreement for a one-month extension to complete construction of the house on the North 23rd Street property, which she approved because there had been weather and materials delays; however, she said she expressly informed Munoz that he could not continue working on the property beyond April 2007.

Munoz nevertheless invoiced Zorrilla for construction services through the month of May 2007. There is no dispute that Zorrilla paid Munoz for all invoiced construction services through the end of April 2007, paying him nearly $367,000 for that work. However, she refused to pay any invoices for work performed in May 2007, claiming the work was unauthorized or had been previously invoiced.

Munoz presented a vastly different scenario, asserting the $212,973 estimate was part of a detailed written contract, which he and Zorrilla both signed on December 9, the day Zorrilla hired Aypco Construction. Among the terms of the written agreement was a requirement that “any addition, deviations or omissions from the original plans” be approved by the parties in writing before work commenced. The agreement further specified that construction would be completed in six months, but to appease Zorrilla's desire for an earlier completion date, Munoz hand wrote and initialed the following change to the agreement: “NOTE: Estimated time of completion is 4 months, pending weather conditions, inspections timing, and arrival of special order items.” However, Munoz had taken two copies of the agreement to Zorrilla with the intention that she would keep one for her records, and he only made the handwritten change to one of the copies. Zorrilla returned both copies of the agreement to him, but she signed only the copy that included the six-month estimate for completion. In her pleadings and at trial, Zorrilla disavowed the existence of any written agreement, claiming that her signature on the December 2006 agreement had been forged.

Although disputing the form and substance of the construction agreement, the parties agree that Aypco Construction began work at the North 23rd Street property in late December 2006 and that Zorrilla regularly visited the job site throughout the construction process, frequently speaking with Munoz or his subcontractors two or three times a day.

Soon after construction began, significant modifications and additions were made to the North 23rd Street property that were beyond the scope of the original estimate.¹ Munoz testified that Zorrilla specifically requested all additional work and modifications, and importantly, his testimony about Zorrilla's requests was corroborated in several respects by other witnesses.

Munoz also produced a revised estimate he had provided to Zorrilla in early March that totaled $540,303, including nearly $150,000 attributable to a 2,300 square foot guest house Aypco had substantially constructed on Zorrilla's property. Munoz does not claim that Zorrilla signed the estimate or executed a revised written contract.

Zorrilla admitted she saw the revised estimate, was aware that the improvements were being constructed on her property, and “extensively” discussed the matter with Munoz, but she flatly denied approving upgrades to the main house and any additional work, including the guest house. Zorrilla further claimed she had repeatedly requested Munoz to cease construction activities outside the scope of the original estimate, but she nevertheless paid in full several written invoices explicitly identifying that work as constituting “modifications” or “extras.”²

In addition to providing construction services to Zorrilla at the North 23rd Street residence, Munoz and an Aypco Construction employee, Gregorio Perez, testified that Zorrilla requested they make repairs to another residential property she owned on Plazas del Lago Drive. According to Munoz and Perez, construction work at Plazas del Lago included remediating damage caused by a water leak and repairing a sprinkler system. Itemized invoices and cancelled checks reflect that Zorrilla paid Aypco Construction for some of the Plazas del Lago work, but she denied ever hiring Aypco Construction to perform any repair work on that property.

While construction was ongoing, Aypco Construction billed Zorrilla on a weekly basis by providing her one-page documents entitled “Weekly Advances.” Each weekly invoice categorized, to varying degrees, the labor and material costs for work that had been performed and informed Zorrilla of the amount immediately owed to Aypco. Zorrilla acknowledged receiving the weekly invoices and agreed that she had paid Aypco based on the amounts identified in those invoices through...