### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 01 26 -C V

______________________________ RK GREENERY I

NCORPORATED, Appellant V. TEXOMA PL ANT & TREE FARMS, L L C, Appellee
On Appea l from the 402nd Judi cial District Court

Wood C ounty , Texas Trial Court No. 2007-544

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice MoseleyAlthough T exoma contends this was a suit on sworn ac count, its petition was unverified. 1 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON RK G r e e n e r

y I n c o r p o r a t e d ( R K ) a p p e a l s s u m m ar

y j u d g m e n t s g r an t e d

i nf a v o r o f T e xo ma Plant & Tre e F arms, L L C (Texoma) on the g round that the trial c ourt improperly disreg arde d parol evidenc e. B eca

use the trial c ourt did not rule on the parol evidenc e issue, RK has failed to preser ve an issue for

appea l. We affirm. I. P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound I n J une 2007, Te x oma, a tre e producer , sold RK, a commerc ial landsca pe contr actor , a
nasce nt port ab l e fore st of 360 live oak tre es, ea ch tre e in a f orty -five- g allon container . The tre es
wer e deliver ed in t hree shipments, made on J une 19, 20, and 27, 2007, a nd wer e ther eaf

ter plante d by RK at various landscaping projec ts in Tex as. Afte r the tre es we re a cce pted, RK rec eived thre e invoices totaling $50,400.00. Only the invoice for J une 20 in the sum of $8,400.00 was pa id, leaving an unpaid ba lance of $42,000.00. Beca use RK fa iled to pay

the re maining invoice s, Texoma filed
su it f or br e a c h o f c on tr a c t. Te xoma ' s pe tit ion a lle g e d that RK a g re e d to make pa y me nts a t sp e c if

ic 1 times as stated in the invoices, the first two of which included the term "N et 30" and the third stated "N et 45" (i.e., that pa

y ment was to be ma de within thirty or for ty -five da y s of deliver

y ). Howeve r, RK re sponded t h at i t "ne ver a g ree d to make a pa y ment at a spe cific time." Acc ording to RK, Texoma's repr esentatives had reque sted that RK purcha se " a lar g e lot of tree s from Texoma beca

use Texoma was having se rious difficulties marke ting the tr ees" and, as a n inducement3

to make the sa le, its repre sentative " insisted that Tex o m a wo u l d acc ept pay ments on whateve r
sc he du le RK

Gr e e ne ry c ou ld p ay ." B a se d o n th is c on dit ion , RK a c c e pte d d e liv e ry

of the tr e e s. RK claimed it did not have the " fiscal stre ng th to make the pay ment" " due to hig h rate s of def ault by customers of RK." There fore , RK g ener ally denied the petition, a nd asser ted aff irmative def

enses of fr aud and f

ailure of Texoma to meet conditions prece dent. Noting that a number of the tre es had died and c laiming RK " would not have a cce pted these trees had it known t hat s uch a la rg e number of them would die," RK also filed counte rcla ims under th e Texas Dece ptive Trade Practice s Act (D TPA ) t

hat T e xoma : a ) r e pr e se nte d th a t g oo ds or se rv ic e s h a d sp on so rship, a pp ro va l,
c ha ra c te ri sti c s, ing re die nts , u se s, be ne fi ts, or qu anti tie s wh ic h the y did no t ha ve ; b) fa ile d to dis c los e information conc erning g oods or services which was known at t he ti me of the t ransa ction with intent to induce RK into a transa ction which it would not have e ntere d into h ad t h e i n formation bee n disclosed; c) r epre sented that a n ag ree ment confe rre d or involved rig hts, remedies , or oblig ations which it did not have; and d) undertook an unconscionable action or cour se of a ction. RK made no claim of fr audulent induce ment, brea ch of w arr anty , or fa ilure of c onsideration. Te xoma fi le d a tr a dit ion a l mo tio n f

or summa ry jud g me nt o n it s b re a c h o f c on tr a c t c la im. The summary

judgme nt evidence consisted of an af fi d avit by David Clark, a

n office r of Te x oma, which rec ounted its ve rsion of the events surrounding the sale of the tree s, incorporating c opies of the three invoices and the singula r $8,400.00 che ck fr o m RK ref ere ncing one invoice. F urther summary judgme nt evidence was a n aff idavit of Texoma's attorney relating to attorney ' s fee s and a4

cop y o f RK ' s r e s p o n s e to r e qu e s ts f o r a dmi s s io n s , in w h ic h RK a dmi tt e d th a t it h a d r e c e iv ed the invoices totaling $54,000.00 and that it had not paid t he invoices. In its response, RK ar g ued that Texoma was not entitled to summary judgme nt beca

use pay ment was not due ( beca

use the initial
a g r e e me n t w a s th at RK

o n ly h a d to p ay " w h e nit w a s a b le to p ay

f o r th e tr e e s " an d

th a t i t w as financ ially

unable to do so) a

nd that althoug h the discover y showed that RK had be en invoiced the $54,000.00, there was no summary judgme nt evidence s h owing that RK had ag ree d to pay that
am o u n t . T h i s p o s i t i o nwa s s u p p o rt edb y

an af fi d av i to f R i ckHu gh es , R K's p re s i d en t , t h i s b ei n g a
re i t er at i o n o f t h o s e p o s i t i o n s an d t h e fa ct s s u rr o u n d i n g t h em . I nre p l y , T ex o m a o b j ec t edt o Hu gh es 's
a ff ida vit on the ba sis that it

wa s p aro l e vid e nc e wh ic h it a lle g e d RK

wa s atte mpt ingto e mpl oy to modify the terms of the written contra ct. The trial c ourt g rante d Texoma's motion fo r s u m m ar y judgme nt on its breach of contra ct cl a i m . A s u b s eq u en tn o -e v i d en ce m o t i o nfo r s um m ary j u d gm en twa s fi l edb y

T ex o m a o nR K's DTPA ca use of a ction. The c ourt hear d the matter, took it under a dvisement, and e ventually g rante d Texoma's no- evidenc e motion. Final judg ment was e ntere d in favor of Texoma in the amou n t of $42,000.00 with $1,084.00 in attorney ' s fee s. Although there is neither a wr itten order e x cluding this summ ary judgme nt evidence nor a statement by the trial court at the hea ring that this was the basis for the g rant of T exoma's summary judgme nts, RK a

ppeals on the sole g round that the trial court should not have " excluded evidenc eAlthough the pray er se eks re versa l of the trial court' s judgme nt, RK ne ver a lleg ed the tria l 2 court e rre d in g ranting summary judgme nt in its brief. All claimed error was fr amed in ter

ms of the trial court' s "r

uling" on the par ol evidence issue. 5 reg ardingthe ag ree ment of the parties under the par ol evidence rule" or " applied the pa rol evidenc e rule to exclude [RK's] evidence to DTPA violations." 2 II. The Tr ialCo ur t D id N otRul e On Te xo m a's P ar ol E vid e nc e Obj e c ti on The g rantingof a summary judgme nt motion " does not nec essar ily provide a n implicit ruli ng th at e it her s us tai ns or o verr ul es o bj ect io ns to th e su mm ary -j ud gment evi den ce." Choctaw Props., L.L.C . v. Aledo I

.S.D. , 1 2 7 S
. W
. 3 d 2 3 5 , 2 4 0

– 4 1 (T ex . Ap p . —W ac o 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t . ) ( c i t i n g Allen
e xre l. B .A . v . A lbi n , 9 7 S.W .3d 655, 663 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.). F or this rea son, we
ca n n o ts ay

t h e t ri al co u rt i mp l i ci t l y s u s t ai n edT ex o m a's p ar o l ev i d en ce o b j ec t i o nt o Hu gh es 's aff idavit. See Ne vins v. W hitley , N o . 1 3
- 0 4
- 4 8 6
- CV , 2 0 0 5 WL 2 0 3 6 2 1 3 a t * 6

– 7 ( T e x. App.—Corpus Christi Aug
. 25, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (re jecting argument court rule d on parol evidenc e objec tion to affidavit when g rantingsummary judgme nt motion). "A s a pre requisite to pre senting a complaint for appellate revie w, the rec ord must show that . . . the trial cour

t: (A) rule d on the re quest, objection, or motion, either expressly or implicitly ; or (B ) re fu se d to ru le
. . . and the c omp la ini ng pa rt y ob je c te d to the re fu sa l. " T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a) (2)( B) . I n this case, the r ecor d does not d em o n s t ra t e t hat the trial c ourt ruled on the pa rolI n fac t, the order on both motions for summary judgme nt de nies all other re lief re quested. 3 T h er e was a lso no ge nuine issue of fa ct re g ardingwhether the money

was owe d. Rather, 4 the a ff ida vit me re ly c la ime d th a t un de r i ts a g re e me nt w ithTe xoma , RK did no t ha ve to p ay un til it was fina ncially able to do so and that it did not have the fiscal stre ng th to make pay ment; there w as no contest of the a

mount which was owe d. 6 e vid e nc e iss ue e xpre ssl y or imp lie dly , o r t hat it re fu se d to ru le
. Thus , RK ha s f a ile d to pr e se rv e thi s 3 issue for a

ppellate r eview, a

nd its point s of er

ror a re ove rruled. Moreove r, when a trial court' s order g ranting summary judgme nt does not specify the g round or g rounds re lied on for its ruling , summary judgme nt will be affi rm ed o n appeal if any of the theories a dvance d are meritorious. Hi ll v . B ar tle tte , 181 S.W .3d 541, 544 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2 0 0 5 , n o p et . ) ( ci t i n g Star- Telegram, Inc . v. Doe , 915 S.W .2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1995)). He re , the tr ia l court c ou ld have de c ide d summ ary jud g me nt w a s p ro pe r o n T e xoma ' s c la ims
un de r t he Te xas B us ine ss a

nd Com me rc e Cod e . Th e statut e of fr a ud s r e qu ir e s a

c on tr a c t f or the sa le of g oods for the price of $500.00 or more to be memorialized by a wr iting suff

icient to indicate that a contract was made. T EX . B US . & C OM . C ODE ANN . § 2. 20 1 ( Ve rn on 20 09 ). Sin c e bo th T e xoma and RK we re me rcha

nts, a writing confirminga contr act se nt w ithin a rea sonable time wa s sufficient if Te xoma ha d re a so n to know of its c on te nts and fa ile d to gi ve wr itt e n noti c e of ob je c tio n w ith in ten day s of re ceipt. T EX . B US . & C OM . C ODE ANN . § § 2
. 2 0 1 ( b ) , 2
. 1 0 4 ( V e r n o n2 0 0 9 )
. T h e t i m e l yse nt i nv oic e s w e re su ff

ic ie nt t o f

ulf ill thi s r e qu ir e me nt b e c a

us e RK fai le d to ob

je c t to the m in writing
. As such, parol evidenc e could not be used to contra dict the t erms of these invoices. T EX .

4 B US . & C OM . C ODE ANN . § 2.202 (Ve rnon 2009).7

Even ha d the cour

t disregar ded the " Net 30" and " Net 45" lang uag e in the invoices a nd decide d that time of pay

ment had not be en specifie d, the Code provides that in the abse nce of such a spec ified t ime for pay

ment, pay ment must be made at a r easona ble time. T EX . B US . & C OM . C ODE ANN . § 2.309 (Ve rnon 2009). B ased on R K's admissions that it had re ceive d the tree s, the che ck showing pay

ment of one invoice , and the a dmission t hat RK had not pa id the rema inder approximately

one y ear afte r ac cepta

nce of the tree s, the trial court was authorized to g rant summary judgme nt on Texom a' s claim. As to t he no -e vid e nc e mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt, RK

wa s r e qu ired to br ingfo rt h evidenc e demonstrating that: 1) it wa s a consumer ; 2) Texoma eng ag ed in fa lse, misleading , or dece ptive acts; and 3) the act s were a produc ing c ause of RK' s injuries. T EX . B US . & C OM . C ODE ANN . § 17.46 (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). Her e, the petition r efe rs to the alleg ed ag ree ment made by the office r of Te x oma for la x pay ment schedule s and re cites four of the DTPA' s laundry

list vi olations without analy sis or application to the fac ts at hand. Althoug h Hug hes' s aff idavit mentioned that tree s the subject of the sale ha d died, it does not alleg e that they died throug h any

fault of Te x oma or that the tr e e s w e re de fe c tiv e in a ny wa y . M os t c omp e lli ng ly , no ev ide nc e of any dama g e c a

us e d to RK
wa s p re se nte d to the tr ia l c ourt . T hu s, summa ry jud g me nt o n th e no -e vid e nc e mot ion wa s p ro pe rl y g rante d.8

III . Co nc lusi on We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: J une 1, 2009 Date D ecide d: J une 2, 2009