NO. 07-06 -033 1-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A MA Y16, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ T IM W OOD, APP ELL ANT

V. LON E STARD IR T & PAV IN G, LTD., APP ELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 72 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; ND NO . 200 4- 528,302 ; H ON ORABLE RU BEN R EY ES, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Tim W ood, a ppeal s a j udg ment ent ered ag ain st him w hic h aw arded appel lee , Lon e St ar

D ir t & Pav ing , Lt d., $4,700 in damag es, $752 in preju dg ment i nterest , $5 ,1 50 i n at to r ne y ’ s fee s , an d po s t- j ud g me nti nt eres t att he rat e of 8 perc en t. W e affi r m. W ood and Lone Star en tered i nto a n oral cont ra ct under w hic h Lone Star

w as to p o u r two co n c re t e sl a b fo u n d a t io n s o n W o o d ’s p ro p e rt y. Lo n e S t a r a gr e e d t o p ro vid e two shop floor

fini sh q ual ity

sl abs for $5, 300. W ood ac cepte d t h is o f f e r and prepared th e prop erty for Lon e Sta r to pou r the slabs.2

Af ter the slabs w ere po ured , W ood conta cted Lon e Sta r indicating thatthe slab s did not c onform to t he s hop floor fini sh q ual ity

thatthe par

ti es had ag re ed upon

. Lone S tar ins pect ed th e slabs and off ered to repai r por ti ons of the s lab s t hat fai led to confor m to t he ag re ed upon st andard. W ood offered t o acceptthe sl abs if Lone Star w oul d agree not to bill him. Lon e Sta r did not agree to this propo sal and W ood o rdered L one S tar to leave his proper ty

. Lone S tar

bi ll ed W ood i n a cc o rd ance w it h the ter ms of the ag re ement. After W ood failed to pay the inv oice, L one S tar f iled a me chan ic’s an d ma terialm an’s lien against W ood’ s p ro per

ty

. In re spons e, W ood filed the ins tant sui t ag ain st Lone S tar

. Lone S tar fi l ed a n an s w er

a nd a c ou nt erc l ai m. After th e pres en ta ti on of ev i de nc e, th e c as e w as s ub mi tt ed to th e j ur y . The jury re tur ned a v erdict findi ng , inter alia , tha t the re was a n oral agreem entb etween th e pa rties, bo t h W o o d a n d L o n e S t a r fa i l e d t o c o mp l y w i t h t h i s a g r e e me n t , L o n e S t a r ’ s fa il ur e to com ply w as e xc u s e d , b ut W ood ’s w as no t. Th e jury f urthe r fo und thatLon e Sta r’s damag es caus ed by

W ood’ s fail ure to compl y w it h the ag re ement w as $4,700. After the v erdict w as read , neith er party v oiced a ny objection a nd the t rial court accep ted the verdict of the j ur

y . W ood fil ed a Mo ti on for New Trial co n te n d in g tha t t he j ur y ’s respon se to q uest ion tw o, Lo ne St ar ’s fail ur e to compl y w it h the ag re ement, w as in fatal confli ct w it h i ts re spons e to q uest ion ni ne, Lone Star ’s damag es caus ed by W ood’ s fai lure to compl y w it h the a g re ement; the j ur

y ’s respon se to q uest ion se v en, W ood’ s fai lure to compl y w it h the ag re ement, w as suppo rt ed by no e v ide nce o r in suffici ent e v ide nce; and there w as no ev ide nce o r in suffici ent e v ide nce to s uppor t t he j ur y ’s respon se to q uest ion ni ne, L one S t a r’ s d a m a ge s . W o o d ’s n e w tr ia l m o t io n wa s o ve rr u le d b y o p e ra t io n o f la w.3

By three iss ues, W ood appeals . By hi s first tw o i ss ues, W ood c hal len g es the l eg al and factu al suf

fici ency of the e v ide nce to s uppor t t he j ur y ’s findi ng thatW ood fail ed to compl y w it h the agreement. Byhis thi rd iss ue, W ood contend s that the jur y ’s findi ng s t hat Lone Star

f ail ed to compl y

w it h the ag re ement an d the damag es suffered by Lone Star

as a resul t of W ood’ s fai lure to compl y w it h the ag re emen t a re i n f a tal co nflict. Address ing th e th eo r y u po n w hi c h W oo d prem i s es e ac h of h i s i s s ue s , w e affi r m. Al l of W ood’ s a ppel lat e content ion s are premis ed on the t heor y thatLone Star

w as notentitle d to recover dama ges af ter it failed to comp ly

w ith the agreeme nt of

the pa rties. Acc ordin g to W ood, once Lone Star faile d to compl y w it h the ag re ement by prov idi ng sl abs tha t did notm eett he quality sp ecif ied in the agreeme nt, a ny subse quent failure to co mp ly w it h the ag re ement by W ood w as ex cus ed. W ood’ s first tw o i ss ues co n te n d tha t any ev ide nce submi tted re g ardin g his failure to pay Lone Star

should not hav e been cons ide re d by the tr ial courtbecause suc h fail ure w as ex cus ed byLone Star ’s f ail ure to compl y w it h the a g re ement. W ood’ s thi rd i ss ue c ontends thatj ur y findi ng s o n q uest ion s tw o and nin e w er e i n fatal co nflict bec ause the j ur y found thatLone Star

fail ed to c o m ply

w it h the ag re ement, y et sti ll found thatLone Star w as damag ed by

W ood’ s fai lure to compl y w it h the agreeme nt. Howev er, W ood never challenged, at trial or on app e a l, the jury’ s re spons es to q uest ion three, i n w hic h the j ur y found t hat L one St ar ’s fail ure to compl y w it h the agreeme nt w as excused, or q uest ion eight, in w hich th e jury foun d tha t W ood ’s fa ilure to c omply

w as not e x cus ed. Unc hal len g ed jur

y findi ng s are bi ndi ng on a n appel lat e c our t. See Mo rrell v . F ink e, 184 S. W .3d 2 57, 2 85 n. 29 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 2 0 0 5 , pet. ab ated) ; Be dford v . M oore,4

166 S.W .3d 454 , 466 (Te x .Ap p.– Fort W orth 2005 , no pet.) (Cay ce, C

. J

. , co n curring)

. W ood’ s fai lure to chal len g e t h e j ur y ’s findi ng s t hat L one St ar ’s breach of the ag re ement w as excused w hile W ood ’s w as not und ermin es his app ellate the orybeca use L one Star’s ex cus ed breach of the ag re ement did n o t ex cus e W ood’ s b re ach of the ag re ement. Beca use W ood ’s app ellate issues are all predicate d on the th eory that his failure to co mp ly w it h the agreement w as ex cus ed byLone Star ’s fail ure to compl y w it h the ag re ement an d beca use th is theo ry

is ref ute d by unchallen ged jury f indings to the contrary, w e overrule W ood ’s issues. W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.
Mackey K. Hancock Justice