i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 55 0- CV Mo se s LO PEZ d/b/a Moses L opez Custom Homes and Mose s L opez Custom Homes, Inc., Ap pe lla nts
v . M . G . BU ILD IN GM AT ERIA LS , L td.,

Appellee Fr om the County

Court at L aw No. 2, Be x ar County , Texas Trial Court No. 284228 Honora ble Irene Rios, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J une 3, 2009 AFF I RMED This i s an appeal from a tr ial court judg ment awa rding M.G. BuildingMateria ls (“MG” ) $1 6, 24 2. 78 joi ntl y

and se ve ra lly a g a ins t Mo se s L op e z (“ L op e z”) and Mo se s L op e z Cus tom

Ho me s, Inc. L opez bring s two issues on appea l: (1) the trial court erre d in awa rding judgme nt ag ainst Moses L op e z Cus tom

Ho me s, Inc .; a

nd (2 ) t he tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in awa rd ingjud g me nt a g a inst L op e z as a g ua ra nto r o f t he ind e bte dn e ss o f M os e s L op e z Cus tom Ho me s, Inc . We a ff

ir m.04
- 08
- 00 55 0- CV

- 2- B ACKG ROUND In 1995, L opez submit ted a cre dit a pplication to MG , a building mater ials supplier. On the application, L o p ez n o t ed h e wa s the individual owner of an entity named Moses L opez Custom Homes. The end of the application included a section t itled “Continuing Gua ranty ,” which r ead a s fo llo ws : In order to induce MG B uilding Mate rials, Inc. to extend cre dit to Moses L opez Custom Homes I , or we , hereb y gu arantee the acc ounts of . Th is a [sic ] co nti nu ingg ua

ra nte e and sh a ll r e ma in i n f

or c e un til re vo ke d b y

me , o r u s, by no tic e in wri tin g . . . . Th is o bli g a tio n s ha ll c ov e r t he re ne wa l of

any c la ims g uara nteed by this inst rument, or e x tension of pay ment of such claims, and notice of rene wal or e x tension of time is hereby waived. As noted, while L opez completed the blank indica ting c redit wa s being extended to Moses L opez Custom Homes, he did not complete th e b l ank noti ng which ac counts wer e guara nteed. L opez’s signature followe d this sec tion. Base d on his application, MG extended cr edit to L opez and provided him with an acc ount. L opez utili zed the acc ount regularly for the next seve n y ear s to purchase g oods and mater ials on cre dit from MG. In 2001, L opez incorporat ed his sole proprietorship under the cor porate name of

Moses L opez Custom Homes, Inc. L opez never informed MG he had incor porate d his business. For the
ne xt two y e ars , L op e z ch arg e d g oo ds and mate ri a ls or a llo we d the c ha rg ing of g oo ds and

mate ri a ls for use by his corporation. In 2003, a dispute ar ose betwe en the pa rties, and MG f

iled suit to collec t past-due c harg es
o nth e a cc o un t . L o p ez an s we re d an d co un t er cl ai m ed fo r u s ury . In 2 0 0 5 , M G a m en d edi t s p l ea d i n gs to a dd Mo se s L op e z Cus tom

Ho me s, I nc . a s a

de fe nd ant; the c or

po ratio n a

ns we re d a

nd a lso counter claimed f

or usury . The c ase w as tried befor e the trial court in 2007. The tr ial court issued04
- 08
- 00 55 0- CV

- 3- a jud g me nt a

wa rd ingMG $1 6, 24 2. 78 a g a ins t L op e z and Mo se s L op e z Cus tom

Ho me s, Inc . jo int ly and seve rally , afte r off

setting usur

y penalties a ssessed ag ainst MG. This appea l followed. D I S CUS S I ON In h is first issue, L opez argues the trial c ourt err ed in awa rding judgme nt ag ainst Moses L op e z Cus tom Ho me s, Inc ., a s the c or po ratio n wa s no t the a c c ount de bto r. In it s f ind ing s o f f

a c t, the trial cour

t note d that L opez sig ned the application assumingresponsibility for the a ccount, a

nd that MG was una

war e of the corpor ation’s exis tence . Howeve r, in its conclusions of law, the trial court a lso noted that Moses L opez Custom Homes, Inc. ’s fa i l ure to pa y the amounts due on the
ac co u n t co n stitut ed a f

ailure to pa

y under the terms of a

sworn ac count. L opez argues that the finding s of fact—that L opez as an indivi dual sig ned the a pplication, and that MG wa s unawa re of the cor poration’s e x istence—c annot be r e c o n c il e d w ith the tr ial court’s c onclusion that Moses L opez Custom Homes, I nc. is also liable for the debt based on the theory of sworn a ccount. We disag ree . To prove a s u i t o n a s wo rn acc ount, MG had to show that: 1) it provided the sa le and delivery of merc handise or perf ormanc e of service s to Mose s L opez Custom Homes, Inc.; 2 ) t he amount of the a ccount is “just,” that is, the price s char g ed are pursuant to an e x press a g ree ment, or in the absenc e of a

n ag ree ment, that the cha rg es ar e usual, c ustomary , or re asonable; and 3) the outstanding a

mounts remain unpaid. Hartney v . Mustang Tractor & Equipment Co. , No. 04 -0 3- 00 10 8- CV , 2 00 4 WL 86 14 0, *1 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio Janu ary

21 , 2 00 4, no pe t.) (m e m.
o p . ) (n o t d esig nated f

or publication) ( citing Powers v. Adams , 2 S. W. 3 d 4 9 6 , 4 9 9 ( T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 19 99 , n o p e t.) ). In d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t he se re qu ir e me nts we re me t,
we no te that“ [w]he n fi nd ing s of fa c t are fi le d and are un c ha lle ng e d,
. . . they occu py th e same position and are entitled to the same weig ht a s the ver dict of a jury .” McG alliard v. Kuhlmann , 72204
- 08
- 00 55 0- CV

- 4- S
. W
. 2 d 6 9 4 , 6 9 6 ( T e x. 19 86 ); N C N B Texas Nat. Bank v. Ande rson , 8 1 2 S. W. 2 d 4 4 1 , 4 4 4 ( T e x. App.—San Antonio 1991, no pet.). T h e f i n d i n gs o f f

ac ti s s u edb y

t h e t ri al co urt i nt h i s ca s e w er e u n c h a l l e n g e d
. T h e f i n d i n gs included the f

ollowing: in 1995, L opez sig ned the MG cre dit a pplication, including the continuing g uara nty in fa v o r of MG to gua

ranty repa y ment of the amounts charg ed to the ac count; MG was
un awa re of Mo se s L op e z Cus tom Ho me s, Inc .’ s inc or po ra tio n; b e g inn ingin Janu ary 20 01 (t he tim e of the incor

poration), L opez permitted and c aused Mose s L opez Custom Ho me s, I nc. to obtain g oods and mater ials from MG; the cha rg es for the goods provided by

MG wer e re asonable and customar y for suc h g oods at the time the goods wer e sol d and in the loca le wher e they wer e sold; and the total amount owed f

or the g oods char g ed to the ac count wa s $25,960.24 afte r all off sets, cre dits, and pay ments. L opez argues that bec ause the court found he wa s the ac count debtor, a nd Moses L opez Custom Homes, I nc. wa s not a party to the express ag ree ment , t h e trial court err ed in findingthe
c or po ratio n li a

ble . H ow e ve r, pr oo f of a su it on a sw or n a c c ount d oe s n ot require an e xpre ss ag ree ment; in the absenc e of an agree ment, the plaintiff ca n meet the se cond re quirement by showing that the cha

rg es we re usua l, customary , or re asonable
. See H artney , 2004 WL 86140 at *1. B ased
o nth e s e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , th e r e qu i r e m e n t s f

o r a s u i to na s w o r na c c o un tw e r e m e t . C o n s e qu e n t l y, the trial cour

t did not err in awa

rdingjudgme nt ag ainst Moses L opez Custom Homes, I nc. L opez’s first issue is overrule d. In h is s e c on d is su e , L op e z ar g ue s th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in g ra

nti ng jud g me nt fo r MG a g a ins t L op ez b as ed on his breac h of the guara nty ag ree ment, beca

use the c orporation’s name wa s not included in the re l ev ant par ag raph of the guara nty ag ree ment. L opez further argues he c ould not have guara

nteed the de bts of the cor poration six y ear s befor e i t s i nception. To prove brea ch of04
- 08
- 00 55 0- CV

- 5- contra ct the followingelements must be satisfied: “ (1) a valid contra ct; (2) the pla intiff perf ormed or tende red pe rfor

mance ; (3) the de fenda

nt brea ched the contra ct; and (4) the plaintiff was da mag ed
as a r esult of the bre ach.” Richter v. W agner Oil Co. , 9 0 S. W.3 d 890 , 8 98 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 2002, no pet.). Ba sed on the trial court’s unc halleng ed finding s of fa ct, L opez does not dispute the exis tence
o f a valid contract; nor doe s he dispute the trial c ourt’s finding s that MG provided supplies and materia ls on cre dit as a result of the contr act, L opez failed to pay cer tain char g es on the c ontrac t, and
as a r esult $25,960.24 was owe d for g oods char g ed to the ac count af ter a ll offsets, cr edits, and pay ments. L opez’s sole complaint in this is sue is that he cannot be held liable for debts incurr ed by the cor poration, as it was not include d in the terms of the c ontrac t. As we ha ve pre viously

stated: In c on str uin g a wr itt e n c on tr a c t, w e mu st a sc e rt a in a nd g ive e ff e c t to the pa

rt ie s’ intentions as expressed in the document. We, there fore , look to the entire wr iting and attempt to harmonize and g ive ef fec t to all the provisions of the contra ct by analy zing the se pr ov isi on s w ithre fe re nc e to t he wh ole a g re e ment . Ac c or din g ly , n o s ing le pr ov isi on is t ake n a lon e or

g ive n c on tr oll inge ff

e c t; “r a the r, a ll the pr ov isi on s mu st be c on sid e re d w ithre fe re nc e to t he wh ole ins tr

ume nt. ” A c on tr a c t is un ambi g uo us , and construe d as a matter of law , if we can g ive it a ce rtain or de finite leg al meaning or interpr etation. I f an appellate court is unable to harmoniz e the pr ovisions and give e ff e c t to a ll i ts c la

us e s, the c on tr a c t is su sc e pti ble to m or e tha n o ne re a so na

ble int e rp re tatio n a

nd it i s ambi g uo us . Kill een v. L ighthouse Elec. Contr actors, L.P. , 2 48 S.W. 3d 34 3, 34 9 - 35 0 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 2007, pet. d en i ed ) (i n terna l citations omit ted). Review of the trial c ourt’s finding s of fa ct and conclusions of lawreve al the trial c ourt’s judg ment was not tied to L opez gua rante eingthe debts of the c or po ratio n; r a ther, L op e z br e a c he d th e c on tr a c t by fa ili ngto e ns ur e pa

y me nt o f a ll amou

nts char g ed to his acc ount. I n its conclusions of law, the trial court held L opez was ne ver r elea sed fr om04
- 08
- 00 55 0- CV

1 ... W e no t e M
. G
. ’ s argum ent t hat t he t ri al co urt ’ s judgm ent s ho uld b e ref o rme d t o ref

l ect t hat Lo p ez and M ose s L op ez C us t om H om es , Inc
. m ay not recove r ap pel l at e a t t orn ey ’ s f ees as appel l ant s . B as ed on our opi ni on above, we n eed n ot addres s t hi s i s s ue.

- 6- the te rm s o f t

he g ua ra nty a g re e me nt, the g ua

ra nty a g re e me nt c on sti tut e d a

g ua ra nty of any and a ll char g es L opez permitted or appr oved to the ac count, and ther efor e his failure to pay the amounts due
on the a c c ount c on sti tut e d a br e a c h o f c on tr a c t. We a g re e wi th t he tr ia l c ourt ’s a sse ssm e nt. Although L opez did not complete the bl ank naming the acc ount which he w as guara nteeing , it was included as pa

rt of his applicat i o n for credit for his sole proprietorship, Moses L opez Custom Homes. L opez signe d the ag ree ment g uara nteeingrepa

y ment as an induc ement for MG to ext end
cre dit to him . L opez is corr ect in a rguing this c ontrac t did not ex pressly bind him to debts i ncurr ed by Mo se s L op e z Cus tom

Ho me s, I nc .; ho we ve r, the c on tr a c t’ s gua ra nty a g re e me nt bo un d L op e z to
e ns ur e pa y me nt of any c ha

rg e s to the a c c ount. B a se d on the se fi nd ing s, the tr ia l c ourt did no t e rr in finding L opez brea ched the contra ct. L opez’s second issue is over ruled. C ONCL US I ON The trial c ourt did not err in a war ding a joint and severa l ju d gm ent to MG ag ainst Moses L opez Custom Homes, Inc. base d on a suit on a sworn acc ount and Moses L opez as an individual based on br eac h of contra ct. Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med. 1

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice