### NUM BER 13-08- 246- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
JA CK A . C OLMENER O, D /B/A C OAST A L A pp ellan t, H O M E D E S I G N E R S , A/ K/A J AC KA. C OL M EN ER O, D ES IG N ER -B U IL D ER , I N C ., v . RODOLFO R. M A RTINEZ, OLIVI A L. M A RT INEZ , A ND L A RED O N A TION A L BA NK , A pp ellees . On ap pe al f rom th e 3 47t h Dist rict C ou rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la This i s a n appea l from a j udg ment g ra nted by the tr ial co urt in a cont ra ct act ion fil ed by appel lan t, Jac k A. Col menero, d/b/a Coa sta l Home Des ig ners a/k/a Jac k A . C olmene ro , Des ig ner-B uil der , I n c. (“ Col menero” ) ag ain st appel lee s, Rod olfo R . M arti nez , O li v ia L.L a r e d o N a tio n a l B a n k s e tt le d w ith C o lm e n e r o a n d is n o t a p a r ty t o th e a p p e a l. 1 2 Ma rt ine zand Lar edo N ati onal Bank ( “t he M arti nez es” ). By eig ht i ss ues, C olmene ro urg es 1 that t h e j u d g me n t d i d n o t c o n fo r m t o t h e p l e a d i n g s ; t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r r e d i n the adm ission of

ev iden ce; tha t the re w as no ev iden ce to sup port th e judgme nt; th at th e award of attor ney ’s fees w as improper ; and that the tr ial cour t abuse d it s dis creti on i n notg ra nti ng hi s mo ti on for

n ew t r i al

. W e affi r m. I. B A CK GRO UND Col menero i s a home bu il der

. The M arti nez es w er e hi s c u st o m e rs. The par ti es signed a new ho me co ntracto n Octo ber 16 , 200 3. T hrou gh Laredo Nationa l Bank (“LNB”), Col menero recei v ed int er im financi ng of $2 28,000 to bui ld the home. Col menero ag re ed to sell the Martin ezes the reside nce for $34 3,1 90. The f inan cing portion of the ne w hou se cont ra ct sta ted: “ one or mor e thi rd par

ty mor tg ag e l oans in the t otal amount of $308,52 7.00. If the proper ty does not sat is fy the l enders’ under w ri ti ng r eq uirements for t he loa n( s) , t his co ntractw il l ter minat e and the ear nest money w il l be re funded to b uy er .” The cont ra ct w as als o subje ct to the buy er bei ng approv ed for thi rd par ty financ ing des cr ibe d in an at tach ed th ird-party f inan cing condition add end um . Af ter the hom e w as bu ilt, LNB
w oul d not len d the Ma rt ine z es the money becau se it did not appr ais e f o r th e requ est ed loa n amount

. Col menero s ued LN B for v iol ati on of the Tex as Dec epti v e Tra de Pract ic es Act , f r a u d , b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t , q u a n t u m me r u i t , a n d p ro mi s s o r y e s t o p p e l

. H e a l leg ed
s i mi l ar ca us es of ac ti on a g ai ns t th e M ar ti ne z es
. L N B s et tl ed w i th C ol me ne ro. At th e ti me of tri al, the onl y

r emaini ng cl aim ag ain st the M arti nez es w as br each of contract

. At t ri al, w hic h w as before the tr ial cour t, Con nie Roc ha, for merl y a mor tg ag e off ic er3

at LN B, t est ified thatthe M arti nez es filed a loan appli cat ion w it h LNB. She sta ted t hat t he home i n q uest ion had been ap pr ais ed tw ic e, and both ti mes i t fail ed to apprais e for the
re q uest ed loan amount. Accordin g to Roc ha, if the contractw as condi ti oned up on th irdpar ty f in a n cin g , t he M arti nez es w er e unabl e to obtai n a l oan bec ause the h ouse did not apprais e for the req uired amount . Sh e tes ti fied th at t he M arti neze s cont act ed her many ti mes for approv al of the l oan. R ober t G uer ra , former ly

a ba nker

at LNB , t estif ie d tha t LN B had prov ide d
cons tr uct ion financ ing for t he proje ct. The appr ais al v alu e of t he proper ty w as ins uff ic ien t fo r t h e b a n kt o m a k e t h e lo a n t o t h e Ma rt in e ze s
. He o p in e d t h a tL NB wo u ld n o th a ve order ed an apprais al before a l oan app li cat ion w as filed

. How ev er , he sta ted h e had no personal know led g e w hether an appl ic ati on for

the loa n w as filed before o r after the p arti es si g ned t he new

home c ontract

. Col menero tes ti fied th at h e t o o k out a loa n for $228,00 0 to bui ld the h ome. On
cross ex aminat ion , he ack now led g ed t hat t he bank forg av e the l oan as part of the settle me nt. He stat ed th at he spen t an add itiona l $ 70, 000 f rom his corpo rate f und s to build the h ome. Col menero testif ie d t h a t he r ecei v ed an addi ti onal $90, 000 as par t of Col menero’s se ttl e m e n t with LN B. He ag re ed th at he kn ew the cont ra ct w as subj ectto financi ng at the ti me the par ti es entered int o it , but he s tated that he d id not k now

thatthe cont ra ct w oul d ter minat e i f the M arti neze s d id not o btai n financ ing

. At t he end of Col menero’s ca se- in- chi ef, the t ri al cour t g ra nted t h e M arti nez es’ moti on for jud g ment. The trial court also awarded th e Martinezes $20 ,00 0 in atto rney’s fees.4 II. A N A LY S IS 1. Tr ial by C onsen t Col menero first urg es that the t ri al cour t si g ned a jud g ment that did not confor m w it h the plead ing s becaus e the judg ment w as based on t he unpl eaded a ff ir mati v e defense of failu re of condi ti ons pr ecede nt. A c ondi ti on pr ecede nt is defined as a c ondi ti on th at mus t be per formed befor e an ag re ement be tw een t he par ti es becomes a bi ndi ng co ntractor a c ondi ti on t h a t m u st be fulfill ed before any duty to per form ar is es under

an e x is ti ng co ntract

. Wil son & Wils on T

ax Ser vs ., Inc . v

. Moham m ed , 131 S.W .3d 2 31, 2 38 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [14 th D ist .] 2004, no pet .)

. W hen a defendant' s l iab il it y on a co ntractdepend s o n the per formance or happeni ng of a c ondi ti on precede nt, the p lai nti ff mustal leg e and prov e that th e c ondi ti on has h a p p ened or

been per

formed or

thatthere w as a w aiv er of the c ondi ti on precede nt. Parkview

Gen. Hosp., In c. v. Epp es, 447 S.W .2d 4 87, 4 90 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1969, w ri t ref'd n.r .e.) ; see Hur st v. Rus h, 514 S.W .2d 4 72, 4 75 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–Bea umont 1974, no w ri t)

. In t he abs ence of occu rrence o r p e rf o rm ance of such a c ondi ti on pr ecede nt, there c an be no breach of contract

. H ur st, 5 1 4 S. W .2d a t 475 ; Eppe s, 447 S.W .2d a t 490 -9 1. Rul e 67 of the Tex as Rul es of Ci v il Proc edur e prov ide s that is sues not ra is ed by the par ti es that ar e t rie d b y e xpress or i mpli ed c onsen t s hal l be treated as if they had been
ra ise d i n t h e pl eadi ng s. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 67 . Th e trial court ha s broad discretion in deter mini ng w hether

an u npl eaded cl aim has been tr ied by i mpli ed c onsen t of the par ti es
. W hatley v. Dal

las , 758 S.W .2d 3 01, 3 06 ( Tex . Ap p .– Da llas 1988, w ri t den ied ). The t ri al5

cour t i s t o ex er ci se that dis creti on l ibe ra ll y i n fav or of jus ti ce. Id. W hen t he ev ide nce upon t he e xtri nsi c i ss ue i s d ev elo ped und er ci rc umstan ces maki ng cl ear

that t h e p a rt ies understo od s uch is sue w as in the c ase, and w it hout eit her par ty hav ing urg ed an obj ect ion or co mplai nt, impl ied co nsenti s s how n. Realtex Corp. v. Tyler, 627 S.W .2d 4 41, 4 43 ( Tex

. App.–H oust on [1s t Di st. ] 1981, no w ri t)

. To dete rmi ne
w het her the issue w as tried by consen t, the court mu st examine the reco rd not for evi den ce of the i ss ue, b ut rather

for e v ide nce of tri al of the i ss ue. In re W alters, 39 S .W .3d 2 80, 2 89 (Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2001, no pet .) ; W atts v. St. M ar y' s Hall , Inc. , 662 S.W .2d 5 5, 58 (Te x . App .–S an An ton io 198 3, w rit ref 'd n.r.e .). Here, t he ev ide nce is cle a r that the is sue re g ardin g the failu re of condi ti ons prec ed en t w as t r i ed

. I n C ol me ne ro’ s o pe ni ng s ta te me nt , he u rg ed t ha t th e c on tract required the Martinezes to prom ptly seek f inan cing fo r the ho use a nd u se every reason able effort. D ur ing the Ma rt ine z es’ openi ng sta tement, co unsel arg ued, w it hout obj ect ion , t hat: it w as con tingent o n certain things. T here w as [sic] tw o con tingencies in th is cont ract. One of

the con tingencies wa s o n t h e f irst page of the con tract w here I highligh ted

. . . . ‘If the pro perty does no t satisf y the len ders under w ri t i n g r e q u i r e me n t s fo r t h e l o a n , t h i s c o n t r a c tw i l l t e r mi n a t e a n d t he earn est m one y

w ill be ref und ed to buyer.’ Cou nsel for t he M arti nez es als o urg ed, w it hout obj ect ion , t hat “ the c ondi ti ons pr ecede nt for this cont ract to ta ke ef fect w ere ne v er me t.” From the b eginning o f

trial, it w as clear tha t a prima ry issue to be tried in the ca se
w as w hether

the condi ti ons pr e ce dent had oc cur re d. Col menero made n o obj ect ion s t o t h e i n t ro d u c t i o n o f

e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e fa i l u r e o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s p r e c e d e n t

. W e conc lud e tha t t he i ss ue w as tr ied by co nsent

. Col menero’s first is sue is ov er ru led

.6

2. Evi denti ar y Iss ues In Colm ene ro’s second and third issues, he u rg es tha t the trial court erred in admit ti ng ev ide nce of the home appr ais als thatLN B recei v ed and ev ide nce that the Ma rt ine z es appl ied for a home l oan w it h LN B. The admis si on or

ex cl usi on of ev ide nce is co mmitt ed to the tr ial co urt’ s d is creti on. In r e J .P.B

. , 180 S.W .3d 5 70, 5 75 ( Tex . 200 5) ; Gee v. Liberty Mut. F ir e I n s . Co ., 765 S.W .2d 4 02, 4 09- 11 ( Tex . 198 8)

. To obtai n re v ersal of a ju dg ment bas ed upon er ro r in the admis si on or

ex cl usi on of ev ide nce, an appel lan t mus t s how thatthe tr ial co urt’ s e rror p ro b a bly r esul ted i n an improper j udg ment. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 4.1; N i s s an Motor

Co. v. Ar m str ong , 145 S.W .3d 1 31, 1 44 ( Tex . 200 4)

. In order to pr eser

v e er ro r in the a dmis si on
or ex cl usi on of ev ide nce, the re cord mustr eflectthatthe er ro r w as proper ly pr eser v ed. To pr eser

v e er ro r in an er ro neous a d m is si on of ev ide nce, a pa rt y mustdo t he follo w ing : (1 ) pr esentto the tr ial courta ti mely req uest , objec ti on, or moti on; ( 2) st ate t he spec ificg ro unds of the c omplai nt, if the spec ific g ro und w as not apparent from the cont ext; and (3 ) obtai n a ru li ng before the tes ti mony is off er ed and re cei v ed. T EX
. R. E V ID
. 103( a) (1 ); GT

E Mo bil net of S. Tex

. Ltd. P’

shi p v. Pa sc o u et, 6 1 S

. W

. 3 d 5 9 9 , 6 1 3 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 4 th Dist .] 2 0 0 1 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Rend lem an v. Clarke , 909 S.W .2d 5 6, 58 (T ex. App.– Housto n [14 th Dist.] 19 95, w rit dism’d.)). Dur ing tr ial , C onni e R ocha re spond ed affirmat iv ely w hen as ked if the Ma rt in ez es submi tted a l oan app li cat ion for t he new home c ontract

. Col menero di d notobj ectto the q uest ion . Si mil ar ly , ev ide nce of the home a p p ra is als w as admit ted, w it hout obj ect ion , throug h the testi mony

of both Rocha and Guer ra
. Therefor e, w e hold that error w as not7

pr eser v ed w it h reg ard to eit her the admis si on of t h e apprais als or the admis si on of
ev ide nce that the Mar

ti nez es made a loa n appli cat ion w it h LN B. See T EX
. R. E V ID . 103 (a ) (1 ). W e ov er ru le Col menero’s se cond and t hird i ss ues. 3. Suf ficiency of

the Evid ence In a non- jur y tr ial , t he tr ial co urt s er

v es as a fact find er

and mag is tr ate. Qantel Bus. Sys ., Inc

. v. Cus tomCo n tr o ls Co. , 761 S.W .2d 3 02, 3 06 ( Tex . 198 8) ( Gonz ale z , J ., conc ur ri ng ). I n Qante l , t he c our t hel d tha t w hen a pla int iff re sts his or her ca se, on mot ion for j udg ment by

a de fendant, t he tr ial cour t has the pow er to ru le on bot h the factual and leg al is sues and to mak e factual findi ng s. Id . at 30 4. A trial court’s f in d in gs of fact are
re v iew ed for

leg al and fact ual suff ic ien cy of the ev ide nce; the same sta ndard appl ied w hen
re v iew ing ev ide nce suppo rt ing a j ur y findi ng
. Or

ti z v. Jo nes , 9 1 7 S

. W

. 2 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 2 (T e x. 1996) ( per

cu ri am). Leg al and factual suffici ency of t he ev ide nce sta ndards of rev iew g ov er n an appeal of a non- jur y tr ial on t he mer it s. IKBIndu s. (N ig. ) Ltd. v. Pr

o- Lin e C or

p., 938 S.W .2d 4 40, 445 (Tex. 1997 ). W hen a party app eals from a non -jury trial, it must co mp lain of specif ic findi ng s and concl usi ons of the tr ial court

. Car ra sc o v . Stewart , 2 2 4 S

. W

. 3 d 3 6 3 , 3 6 7 (T e x. App.–E l Paso 2006, no p et.) ; see Ser ra no v . U nio n Pl anter s Bank , N.A., 162 S.W .3d 5 76, 580 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 2004, pet. deni ed). A ge ner al compl ain t c hal len g ing the tr ial
cour t' s j udg ment doe s n ot presenta j ust ic iab le q uest ion

. C a rr asc o, 224 S.W .3d a t 367 ; Ser ra no, 162 S.W .3d a t 580

. A “ no- ev ide nce, ” or

leg al suffici ency , poi nt i s a q uest ion of law w hic h c hal len g es the leg al suffici ency

of the ev ide nce to suppo rt a pa rt ic ula r fact findi ng
. Ser ra no, 162 S.W .3d8

at 57 9. An appel lat e cour t w il l sus tai n a l eg al suffici ency , or “ no- ev ide nce, ” chal len g e i f the
re cord s how s: ( 1) the compl ete a bsenc e of a v it al fact; ( 2) that the cour t is bar re d by

r ule s of law or ev ide nce from g iv ing w eig ht t o the onl y ev ide nce offer ed to prov e a v it al fact; ( 3) that the e v ide nce off er ed to prov e a v it al fact i s no m o re t h a n a s ci nti ll a; or ( 4) thatthe
ev ide n ce e stabli shes co ncl usi v ely the oppos it e of the v it al fact. City of K eller v. Wils on, 168 S. W .3d 8 02, 8 10 ( Tex . 200 5)

. W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t' s c oncl usi ons of law

de n ov o
. Au s ti

n Har dwo ods, Inc. v. Vanden Ber

ghe, 917 S.W .2d 320, 322 (Tex . App.–El Paso 1995 , w ri t den ied ). Er ro neous
conc lus ion s o f law

are not bi ndi ng on t he appe ll ate c our t, but, if the cont ro ll ing findi ng s o f fac t w il l suppo rta c or re ct leg al theor y , are s uppor

ted b y the ev ide nce, and ar e s uff ic ien t to s uppor

t t he j udg ment, then the a dopti on of er ro neous leg al conc lus ion s w il l not mand ate
r ev er sal

. Heritage Res., Inc. v. Hill, 104 S.W .3d 6 12, 6 21 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 2003, no pet .). F i nd i ng s o f fac t ma de b y t he t r i al j ud g e, s i tt i ng a s t he fac t fi nd er , en j oy t he s am e sta tus as findi ng s o f a jur y . And erson v. C it

y o f S e ven Po ints, 806 S.W .2d 7 91, 7 94 (Tex .1991) ; Her

it age R es. , 1 0 4 S

. W

. 3 d a t6 1 9

. I n re vie win g a fa c t u a l s u f f ic ie n c y p o in t , we
mu st consid er all of

the evidence and dete rmine w het her the adverse f in d in g w as so ag ain st the g re at w eig ht and preponderance of the e v ide nce that itw as cl ear ly w ro ng and unj ust

. Ortiz

v. Jones, 917 S.W .2d 7 7 0 , 7 7 2 ( T ex . 199 6)

. W e do not p ass upon the
w it ness es' credi bil it y , nor do w e subst it ute our ju dg ment for that of the fact. M ar . O ver seas Corp. v. Ellis , 971 S.W .2d 402 , 407 (Tex. 1998 ).9

Here, the tri al cour

t made findi ng s o f f actand conc lus ion s o f law

. Theyi ncl uded a f inding tha t t h e h o m e con tract provided th at if the pro perty did not sat isf y the len der’s under w ri ti ng r eq uirement for

the loa n( s) , i t w oul d ter minat e. The tr ial co urt al so found that the Martin ezes o bta ined t w o app raisals in a n atte mp t to secure f inan cing at LNB. Th ese findi ng s w er e s uppor

ted b y the tes ti mony

at tr ial

. The cour

t al so found that the p ro per ty did not sat is fy the l ender ’s under w ri ti ng r eq uirement be caus e i t di d n o t a p p ra is e for an amount s uff ic ien t for LNB to prov ide financ ing

. This findi ng w a s a lso s u ppor ted b y the evidence a ddu ced a t trial. The court also foun d tha t the Mar t in e ze s m a de e v ery re asona ble effort t o obt ain f inanci ng approv al. R ocha tes ti fied th at t he M arti nez es cont act ed her

m any times in an at tempt to g et t he approv al. The c our t c oncl uded t hat t he cont ra ct w as cont ing ent u pon the proper ty sat is fyi ng the len der ’s under w ri ti ng r eq uirement and t hat s uch w as a c ondi ti on precede nt. Th e c o u rt a lso found t hat t he c ontractw as condi ti oned up on financ ing pursuantto a thi rd -p arty financ ing co ndi ti on adde ndum. The evidence sh ows tha t the se con dition s w ere no t me t. Th e trial court’s f indings are suppo rt ed by factual ly and leg all y su ff ic ien t ev ide nce. C olmene ro ’s fifth i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. By i ss ues four and si x , C olmene ro co mplai ns tha t th e t ria l co u rt er re d i n findi ng failu re of tw o condi ti ons pr ecede nt, ra ther than one. Col menero, ho w ev er , s eems t o ag re e in his brief

thatat least o ne co nditio n pre c e d e n t w as no t me t. Base d on the evidence before i t, the tr ial cour

t deter mined that there w er e tw o condi ti ons pr ecede nt and that both had fail ed. The courtbased its concl usi on on ev ide nce that w as not o bje cte d to at t ri al. Beca use we pre v iously he ld t hat t here was su f f icient supp ort for t he trial co urt’s f indings,
w e ov er ru le Col menero’s fourt h and si xth i ss ues.10

4. Atto rn eys ’

F ees By issue sev en, Colme nero urges that th e trial court ab used its discretion w hen it
aw arded at tor ney ’s fees t o the M arti nez es. Generall y , w e r ev iew a t ri al cour

t' s d eci si on to g ra nt or deny att o rn e y's f e es for an abuse of dis creti on, a nd w e rev iew the amount
aw arded as att or ney 's fees under a s uff ic ien cy

of the e v ide nce sta ndard. See Bocqu et v. Her ri ng, 972 S. W .2d 1 9, 21 ( Tex . 199 8) ; EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Davis, 167 S.W .3d 4 06, 418 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2005, pet. deni ed)

. A tr ial co urt abuse s it s dis creti on if i ts deci si on is ar bit ra ry , unreason abl e, an d w it hout refer ence to g uid ing pr inc ipl es. Mer cedes -B enz Cr edit C or p. v . R hyne , 925 S.W .2d 6 64, 6 66 ( Tex . 199 6)

. No obj ect ion w as made to
couns el’ s t est imony

thathe h as been li cens ed to pract ic e sinc e 1980. Cou nsel stated that he had atten ded depos it ion s, pr epar ed moti ons, eng ag ed in dis cov er y and that $20,00 0 for hi s t ime w as a reason abl e fee. W hil e thi s w as cer tai nly not a det ail ed s tatementof fees
ex pended in thi s c ase, i n the absence of obj ect ion , w e cannot say that the tri al cour

t er re d in eit her aw ar din g fees or

er re d i n the amount itaw arded. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1 ; Cit y of Port lan d v . Sh iba , 976 , S.W .2d 856 , 860 -61 ( T ex. App .–Corp us Christi 199 8, w rit ref ’d
n.r .e.)

. Col menero’s se v enth is sue is ov er ru led

. 5. Mo ti on fo r New T

ri al By issue eight, Colm ene ro com plains tha t the trial court abu sed its discretio n in
ov er ru li ng hi s mot ion for n ew tr ial

. W e r ev iew

a tri al cour

t' s denia l of a moti on for new tr ial for abus e of di sc re ti on. In the Inter est of R. R. , 209 S.W .3d 1 12, 1 14 ( Tex . 200 6)

. The tr ial
cour t’ s fin din g s a nd c oncl usi ons w er e s uppor ted b y the ev ide nce. C olmene ro arg ues that fact i ss ues w er e rais ed c oncer nin g w hether the Ma rt ine z es soug ht fina nci ng a n d the11

deg re e of di li g ence ex er ci sed by them. Thes e i ss ues w er e resol v ed by the tr ial co urt w it h
re spec t t o its fact- findi ng auth or it y . Col menero al so arg ues that he had proper ly preser v ed his evi den tiaryobject ions an d urged tha t the judgmen t w as v oid. T he trial cou rt w as w ithin its discretion to den y

the m otion for new trial fo r the sam e reaso ns we have prev iously dis cus sed in the o pin ion

. Col menero’s ei g hth i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. III

. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 0th d ay

of Nov ember , 200 8.