C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
THOMAS J . SI BL EY, P.C., Ap pe lla nt,
v. BRENTWOOD I

NVESTMENT DEVEL OPMENT COMPANY, L .P., Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 10 -0 00 33 -C V

Appea l from the 58th J udicial District Court of Jef fe rs on County , T e xas (TC#A-181,447)

O P I N I O N Th oma s J. Sib le y , P. C. ( “ Sib le y , P. C.” ) a pp e a ls f ro m a ta ke no thi ngsumma

ry jud g me nt i n favor of B rentwood Investment Deve lopment Company , L .P. (“B rentwood” ). In a sing le issue, Sibley contends the judgment was e ntere d in error beca use fa ct issues rema in as to the exist ence of an e nf or c e a ble le a se c ontr a c t be tw e e n th e pa rt ie s. Br entwood Investment Deve lopment Company owns an off

ice c omplex known as “Tusca ny Park,” loc ated at 3450 Dowlen Road in B eaumont, Te x as. In August 2001, the law firm of Sibley , P.C. negotiate d a lea se agree ment with Bre ntwood for Suite “B ” in Tusca ny Park. On or a bout August 31, 2001, Thomas J . Sibley signe d a docume nt titl ed “L EASE” on beha lf of Sibley , P.C. Alt houg h a sig nature blank for B rentwood r epre sentative B rent Coon appe ars on the execution pag e, it rema ins blank. Acc ordingto the lease document, Sibley , P.C. l ease d 4,072 square fee t of offic e spac e for
a pe ri od of te n ye ars . E a c h r e nta l pa y me nt w a s d

ue pr ior to t he fi rs t of e a c h mo nth

of the le a se term, and inc luded a pa

y ment for “ base r ent” a

nd “additional re nt.” “B ase r ent” wa s defined a s-2-

$13.50 per squa

re f oot or $4,581 per month for the first six ty

months of the lease , and $14.50 per sq ua re fo ot p e r m onth o r $ 5, 90 4. 40 pe r m onth f or the se c on d h a lf

of the te rm . “ Ad dit ion a l r e nt” repr esentingSibley , P.C.’s proportionate shar e of ope ratingcosts and taxes for Tusc any Park, was due in monthly

pay ments at the same time a s the base r ent pay ments. “Additional rent” was to be ca lculated in twelve installments based on an a nnual estimate provide d by Br entwood at least once eac h cale ndar year . Br entwood estimated “ additional rent” pay ments for the f

irst y ear of the lea se would amount to $1,272 per month. B ased on B rentwood’ s estimate, the total re ntal pa y me nt d ue fr om S ibl e y , P. C. t o B re ntw oo d d ur ingthe fi rs t ye ar o f t

he le a se wa s a

pp ro ximate ly $5,853.50. Sib le y , P. C. m ov e d into T us c any Park pr ior to O c tob e r 1 , 2 00 1. Th e re a ft e r, Sib le y , P. C. failed to make full rent pay ments for thirty -eight months between Oc tober 2001 a nd November 2 0 0 5
. A c c o r d i n gt o B r e n tw o o d r e c o r d s , S i b l e y, P
. C
. m a d e p art i a l b a s e r e n tp aym e n t s i nJ u l y, August, and September 2004. Br entwood filed suit ag ainst Sibl ey , P.C. for brea ch of c ontrac t on March 18, 2008. Br entwood alleg ed that the lea se docume nt was executed by both parties on August 31, 2001, and that Sibley , P.C. breache d the lease by failingto make re ntal pay ments betwee n October

1, 20 01 and No ve mbe r 1 , 2 00 5. B a se d o n th e re nta l pa y me nt p ro vis ion s a

nd e sti mate s p ro vid e d in the lease , Br entwood alleg ed that Sibley , P.C. owed $214,933 in unpaid base a nd additional rent. Th e pe tit ion

a lso inc lud e d c la ims fo r atto rn e y ’s fe e s a nd pr e - a nd po st- jud g me nt i nte re st. Sibley , P.C. filed a g ener al denial on Apr il 25, 2008, and the ca se proc eede d under a level three discovery

plan. On Mar ch 25, 2009, B rentwood f iled a motion for fina l summary judgme nt on its breac h of contra ct ca use of a ction. In support of its motion, Brentwood submitted sever alSibley filed a hy brid motion for summary judgme nt on the statute of fr auds and 1 limit ations defe nses. The motion does not include supportingevidenc e. The re is no re cord that the trial cour

t considere d or ruled on the motion prior to the final summary judgme nt. Simu lta ne ou sly wi th i ts s umm ary

jud g me nt r e sp on se , Si ble y , P. C. a lso fi le d a mot ion to 2 se t a sid e the de e me d a dmi ssi on s whic h r e su lte d f ro m it s f a ilure to t ime ly

ans we r B re ntw oo d’ s November

14, 2008 reque sts for admissions. The trial cour t gr anted Sibley , P.C.’s mot ion by written orde r on Oc tober 29, 2009. The order has not bee n challeng ed as pa rt of this appea l. -3- exhibi ts, including a

n aff idavit by Mr. Sam Parig i, J r., President of Par igi Investments, Inc., Tuscany Park’s prope rty

manag er. B rentwood a lso submit ted a c opy of the August 31, 2001 lease agree ment, copies of Re quests for Admissions made to Sibley P.C. on November 14, 2008, and Sibley , P.C.’s response to those re quests dated January 9, 2009. After amendingthe discover

y control plan by

an agree d order , Sibley , P.C. filed an amende d orig inal answe r on August 4, 2009. In the amendme nt, Sibl ey , P.C. asserted seve ral aff irmative def

enses; contr act illeg ality , lache s, statutes of fra uds, limi tations, and waive r. The 1 followingday , Sibley , P.C. filed a summary judgme nt response. Sibley , P.C.’s primary argument is focused on B rentwood’ s evidenc e that an e nforc eable contra ct exist ed betwe en the pa rties. Specifica lly , Sibley , P.C. allege d that Br entwood’s f ailure to sig n the lease document ra ised at lease a g enuine issue of

fac t reg ardingthe exist ence of an e nforc eable agree ment. In addition, Sib le y , P. C. a

rgue d th at Mr . Pa

ri g i’ s a ff ida vit wa s d e fe c tiv e , a

nd the re fo re un a

ble to s up po rt

a summary judgme nt, beca

use the a ffidavit fa iled to establish that Mr. Parig i had per sonal knowledg e of the fac ts contained in the a ffidavit. In the alter native, the lesse e ar gued that the aff idavit itself cre ated a

fac t issue by

naminga non-pa

rty “B rentwood Investment Deve lopment Co., Inc.” a s the lessor. The response also ref ere nced Sibley , P.C.’s statutes of frauds a nd lim itatio ns de fe ns e s. Sub se qu e ntl y , B re ntw oo d f ile d a n ame ndme nt t o M r. Pari g i’ s a ff ida vit , in 2-4-

which Mr. Par igi spe cifica lly ref ers to “B rentwood Investment Deve lopment Co., L .P.” as Tuscany Park’s owne r. The tr ial court grante d Sibley , P.C.’s mot ion to set aside any deeme d admissions by

written orde r on Oc tober 29, 2009. On N ovember 24, 2009, the cour

t rende red final summary

judgme nt in favor of

Br entwood aw arding$214,933, plus pre and post-judgment int e re st, and

$5 ,5 00 fo r atto rn e y ’s fe e s. Sib le y , P. C. a pp e a l’ s r a isi nga

sin g le iss ue in whic h it contends the tria l court ente red the final summary judgme nt in error
. An a pp e llate c ourt

re vie ws summa

ry jud g me nt de novo
. Prov ide nt L ife&Ac c ide nt I ns . Co. v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003). The standa rd of r eview f

or a tra ditional summary judgme nt is well established. SeeT EX .R.C IV .P. 16 6a (c ); Nix on v . M r. Prop . M

gm t. Co., Inc. , 690 S.W .2d 546, 548-49 (Te x . 1985). The que stion presented is whe ther the mova nt has ca rried its burde n to establish that there is no g enuine issue of materia l fac t, so that judgment should be g rante d as a ma tter of law
. Di v e rsi c areGe n. Pa rtn e r, In c . v . R ub io , 185 S.W .3d 842, 846 (Tex. 2005). When review ing a traditional summary

judgme nt motion, t he appe llate cour t wi ll t ake a s tr

ue a ll c omp e te nt e vid e nc e fa vo ra ble to t he no n- mov ant, ind

ulg e e ve ry

re a so na ble infere nce, a

nd resolve a

ny doubts in the non-movant’s favor. See Southwestern Ele c. Power Co. v. Grant , 7 3 S. W.3 d 2 11 , 2 15 (T e x. 20 02 ). A tra dit ion a l mo tio n f or summa ry jud g me nt m

us t stand on its own merits, there is no right to a traditional summary judgme nt by

defa ult. Se eCity of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth. , 589 S.W .2d 671, 678 (Tex. 1979). In the ca se bef

ore us, B rentwood move d for summary judgme nt on its own breac h of contra ct ca

use of a ction. The e lements of a c laim for bre ach of contra ct ar e: (1) the exis tence of a valid contr act; (2) perf

ormanc e, or te ndere d perf ormanc e by

the claimant; (3) brea ch of the contra ct by

the def endant; and ( 4) dama g es to the plaintiff re sulting fr om that brea ch. Abraxas-5-

Pe tro le um Cor

p. v . H or nb ur g , 2 0 S
. W
. 3 d

7 4 1 , 7 5 8 ( T e x . Ap p . - - E l P a s o 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t . )
. In
re sp on se , Si ble y , P. C.’ s argume nts are lim ite d to the e xiste nc e of a va lid and e nf or c e a ble contra ct. With S ibley , P.C.’s alleg ed dee med admissions set aside, B rentwood of fer ed the Au gus t 31 , 2 00 1 le a se do c ume nt, signe d b y Th oma s J. Sib le y , a

nd the ame nd e d a ff

ida vit executed by

Mr. Parig i to establish that an enfor cea ble written a g ree ment exis ted as a matter of law. Sibley , P.C. argues a f act issue r emains as to the e x istence of an enf orce able a g ree ment on two g rounds. Fir st, Si bley , P.C. contends a fa ct issue re mains due to Br entwood’s repr esentative’s fa ilure to aff ix a sig nature to the agree ment. Second, Sibley , P.C. contends that Mr. Parig i’s aff

idavit is defec tive, or ra ises a fa ct issue, as it ref ers to a third e ntity , Br entwood De ve lop me nt C o. , Inc . a s T us c any Park ’s owne r. Withre g ard to M r. Pari g i’ s a ff

ida vit , w e no te that the amende d version spec ifies that “B rentwood D evelopment Co., L .P.” is the owner of Tuscany Park. Ther e is no rec ord of a n objection to the amende d aff idavit, and the docume nt also includes testimony

that Sibley

took possession of the offic e spac e in Tusca ny Park, as identified by

the lease document, and oc cupied the spa ce thr oug h August 2009. As Bre ntwood
corr ecte d the alleg ed def

ect in Mr. Par igi’ s aff

idavit, and as Sibley , P.C. has not raised any objection to the amende d evidenc e, we disag ree that the af fidavit cre ates a

fac t issue as to the
e xiste nc e of

an e nf or c e a ble a g re e me nt. Next, we turn to Sibl ey , P.C.’s argument that the August 31, 2001 lease doc ument is not enfor cea ble bec ause it wa s never

signe d by

a B rentwood r epre sentative. Without t he sig nature , Sibley , P.C. concludes there is a fac t issue reg ardingthe exist ence of an e nforc eable written agree ment. A valid contra ct is cre ated by : (1) an of fer ; (2) an a cce ptance ; (3) a me etingof the minds; (4) mutual consent to the terms by both parties; and ( 5) execution and de livery of the-6-

contra ct with the intent that it be mutual and binding. Prime Prod., Inc . v. S.S.I. Plastics, Inc

. , 97 S.W .3d 631, 636 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) . Gene rally , parties c an indicate their

intent to create a mutually binding c ontrac t by

signingthe contra ct documents. See Baylor Univ. v . Sonnichsen , 221 S.W .3d 632, 635 (Tex. 2007). Howe ver, the absenc e of a party ’s sig nature does not nec essar ily destroy an other wise valid contra ct. ABB Kraftwerke Aktienge sellschaft v. Brownsville Barge &Crane, Inc. , 115 S.W .3d 287, 292 (Tex.App.--Corpus Chr ist i 20 03 , p e t. d e nie d) . Apa rt y may a c c e pt a c ontr a c t, a

nd ind ic ate its int e nt t o b e bo un d to the terms by

acts a nd conduct in ac corda

nce w ith the terms. Au

gu sta De v . Co . v . F

ish Oi l W e ll Serv. Co., Inc
. , 761 S.W .2d 538, 544 (Tex.App--Corpus Christi 1988, no writ). In this inst ance , althoug h Br entwood did not sign the agree ment, the unconteste d
e vid e nc e ind ic ate s th at th e pa rt ie s p ro c e e de d w iththe le a se a s th ou g h th e le a se ha d b e e n f ull y executed. The re is no dispute that Sibley occupie d the spac e def

ined in the lease , and oper ated a law f ir m f ro m th e pr e mis e s, and

ma de se ve ra l pa

rt ia l pa y me nts of ba se re nt. L ike wi se , th e re is no dispute that Br entwood, continually operated and maintaine d Tuscany Park, including Sibley ’s offic es in ac corda nce w ith the lease te rms. As such, the f ailure by Br entwood to sig n the lease document does not c reate a f act issue a s to the parties’ mutual a ssent to the agree ment, or the instrument’s enf

orce ablity ag ainst Sibl ey , P.C. See Sonnic hsen , 221 S.W .3d at 635. Sibley ’s argument that a fa ct issue due to B rentwood’ s failure to sign the le ase is over ruled. We now turn brief

ly to Sibl ey , P.C.’s li mitations and statute of fra uds defe nses. When, as in this case, the c laimant moves for tra ditional summ ary judgme nt on its own cause of action, the claimant is entitled to judgme nt by establishing a ll the elements of its claim as a matter of la

w. Fry v. Comm ’n for Lawyer Discipline , 979 S.W .2d 331, 334 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.]-7-

19 98 , p e t. d e nie d) . I f t

he c la ima nt i s a ble to m e e t it s b ur de n a

nd e sta bli shthe e sse nti a l e le me nts of its cause of ac tion as a matter of law, the de fenda

nt cannot def

eat the motion by

blanket
asser tion of its affirmative de fense s. See B rown v. Aztec Rig Equipme nt, Inc. , 921 S.W .2d 835, 84 5 ( Te x.Ap p. -- Ho us ton

[14t h D ist .] 19 96 , wri t de nie d) . A t a min imum, t

he de fe nd ant m

us t come f orth with evidenc e ra ising a fac t issue on eac h element of the def ense to avoid summary judgme nt. See B rownlee v. Brownlee , 6 6 5 S
. W
. 2 d 1 1 1 , 1 1 2 ( T e x . 1 9 8 4 )
. Ino r d e r f o r S i b l e y, P.C.’s defense s to provide a ba sis for the trial c ourt to deny Br entwood’s motion, Sibley was require d to assert the de fense s, support them with evidence , and obtain ruling s. See T EX .R.C IV .P. 16 6a (c ); Brownlee , 665 S.W .2d at 112. Sibley asser ted its affirmative defe nses
on ly in r e latio n to the e sse nti a l e le me nts of B re ntw oo d’ s c a

us e of a c tio n, and

sp e c if ic a lly in support of its argument that there was no c ontrac t to support Bre ntwood’s claim. Without m ore, Sibley , P.C.’s defensive a rguments were not sufficient to def eat the motion. Se eBrown , 921 S.W .2d at 845. Wit h reg ard to the statute of fra uds defe nse spec ifically , Sibley , P.C.’s argument was based on the conclusion that a written agree ment did not ex ist between the parties ba sed on Br entwood’s f

ailure to sig n the lease . As we ha ve conc luded that the omission of the lessor’s signatur e wa s n ot f

ata l to the le a se ’s e nf

or c e a bli ty , Si ble y , P. C.’ s st atut e of fr a ud s a rgume nt i s wi tho ut m e ri t. S imi larl y , Si ble y , P. C.’ s r e ma ini ngc ha lle ng e s to the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt a lso rely on its conclusion that the lease document did not constitute an enf orce able wr itten contrac t. Havingconclude d that Sibley , P.C. has not raised a g enuine issue of materia l fac t reg ardingthe
e xiste nc e of

an e nf or c e a ble wr itt e n a g re e me nt, the ba lanc e of Sib le y , P. C.’ s a

rgume nts re late d to the lease as a ba sis for contra ctual liability are also overr

uled. Acc ording ly , we ove rrule the-8-

rema inder of I ssue One. Ha vin gov e rr

ule d App e lla

nt’ s so le iss ue , w e a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.
September 7, 2011 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.