T he m aj or i t y of t he h om e was a ssem bl ed a t P hi l l i ps’ w or k si t e and t hen m ov ed t o pr oper t y owned 1 i n th e c o u n try b y th e V a u g h a n s w h e re i t w a s c o m p l e te d

. NO. 07-06 -020 8-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 D APR IL 30 , 200 8

_________

_________

_________

___ DA NN YVAU GH AN AN D KATHLE EN VAU GH AN , Appel lan ts
v. ROSS PHIL LIP S d/b /a READY-BUILT HOMES AND

ON -S ITE C ON STRU CTIO N, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 11 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF B RI SC OE COU NT Y; TH NO . 310 0; H ON . J OH N R. H OLLU MS , PR ESID IN G

_________

_________

_______ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

______ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. This l a w s u i t i n v o l v e s t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a p re - b u i l t h o me b y R o s s P h i l l i p s / d/b/a Rea dy -B uil t H omes a nd On- Si te Con str uct ion (P hil li ps) for D anny and Kathl een Va ug han (t he Vaug hans)

. W hen t he Vau g hans faile d to pay Phi ll ips the re mainde r due und er the 1 cont ra ct, he fil ed a li en ag ain st the p ro per ty and sued for breach of contract

. TheT he Vaug hans wer e awar ded an o ff set i n t he a m ount of $51 , 680 agai nst what t hey owed t o Phi l l i ps. 2
2 Vau ghans cou nte rclaimed alleging thatPhillips failed to build an d com plete t h e h o me in a good an d w orkma nlike ma nne r. U pon trial by a jury , judgme nt w as en tered ef fectively deny ing al l li ti g ants the re cov er y of monetar

y damag es. Both the Vaug hans and Ph il li ps

2 per fected an appeal

. W e rev erse and remand i n par t and aff ir m in par

t. Vaugh ans’

A pp eal Iss ue On e The Vaug hans ini ti all y cont end that the j ur y ’s ans w er

to jur y q uest ion two s houl d be dis re g arded. That q uest ion per tai ned t o the identi ty

of the li ti g ant w ho first breache d the cont ract. T he Vaughan s believe tha t the answer shou ld be disregarded b e c a u s e their
o p p o n e n tj u d i c i a l l y

a d m i t t e d , v i a h i s p l e a d i n g s , t h a tt h e i r b re a c h o c c u r re d a f

t e r h i s . W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. Throug h j ur

y i ss ue one of t he c harg e, t he tr ial co urt as ked the j ur y to deter mine w ho breache d the co nst ru cti on c ontract

. The choi ces g iv en w ere D anny Vaug han, Kathleen Vaug han, and Ph il li ps; furth er more, al l three w ere found to hav e mater ial ly breache d the ag re ement. Vi a the next q uest ion , t he j ur y w as ask ed to i denti fy w ho mater ial ly breache d firs t. It found that both Vaug hans did

. This ans w er sh oul d be dis re g arded, acc ordin g to the Vaug hans, because Phi ll ips represent ed, in his liv e pleadi ng that 1) “[o] n Sept ember 23, 2 004, the V aug hans info rmed [hi m] tha t t hey w oul d notal low

[hi m] to cont inu e cons tr uct ion ,” 2) he “f u lly performed hi s o bli g ati ons under the Con tractto the e xtent allowed by ” the Vau ghans, a nd 3 ) “ the Vaugha ns prevente d [hi s ] c om pletio n of his work

. . . by loc ki ng [hi m and his co ntract ors] out” and re present ing that“ no ot her w or k woul d be3

all ow ed by Phi ll ips on the Hou ses .” These av er ments pur por tedl y cons ti tuted a judici al admis si on th at t he Vau g hans did not breach the agre e m e n t u nti l September 23, 2004,
w hic h dat e al leg edl y

fell after the Jul y 2004 c onv ersat ion w herein Phi ll ips st ated that he
w as ceas ing w or k. T hatfactu al state me nts ut tered in plead ings may const itute judicial adm issions is bey ond doubt. S ee Horizon/ CMS Healthca re Corp. v. Auld , 3 4 S

. W

. 3 d 8 8 7 , 9 0 5 (T e x. 2000) ( defini ng j udi ci al admis si on as incl udi ng fact ual statement s in plea din g s) . Y et, to be
suc h an admis si on, t he utterance must be c lea r, del ibe ra te, a n d u n e q uiv ocal

. Id. If so, the n the adm ission prete rmits the introdu ction o f contrary ev iden ce an d relieves the jury from hav ing to address w hether the admitted fact

actual ly arose or oc cur re d. Id. W it h tha t in mind, w e tur n to the wordin g at is sue and i mmediat ely note thati t s ay s n othing ab out any one breachi ng the cont ra ct firs t. N or do t he words sug g estthe absen ce of anyothe r breach commi tted by the Vaug hans before September 23, 2004; ind eed, any su g g est ion to th e con trary

w ould be quickly

dispelled byPhillips’ earlier ave rm e nt regarding their failu re to make p a yments per the ag re ement. And, thi s a ll eg ati on abou t pay ment i s o f impor t g iv en Phi ll ips ’ charact er iz ati on of the breach as encompas si ng both his i nabi li ty to cont inu e due to t hei r act ion and thei r non- pay ment. So, w hen taken in cont ext, w e c annot say tha t the allegation s consid ered to be adm issions by the Vaugha ns clearly, delibe rately and une q uiv ocal ly

i ll ust ra te t hat Phi ll ips breache d the co ntractfirst. So , t hose all eg ati ons d id n o tb a r t h e t ri a l c o u rtf ro m su b m it t in g qu e s t io n two t o t h e ju ry.4

Is s ueT wo Next, the Vau ghans con ten d the trial court erred in den y ing them att o rn e y’s fe es. Theybel iev ed th emsel v es enti tl ed to sa me under §38. 001 o f

the Ci v il Pract ic e and Remedi es Cod e and §53.156 of the P ro per ty C ode. W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. As suggested by the Vau ghans, a p re v ailing party may indee d recover attorne y ’s fees under

§38. 001 of the Ci v il Pract ic e and Remedi es Code w hen s uin g upon a c ontract

. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . §38. 001( 8) ( Ver non 199 7)

. And, they di d al leg e c auses of a ct io n a gainst Phi ll ips so undi ng i n c ontract

. Howev er , t he j ur y aw arded t hem no damag es, and thi s i s fatal to thei r is sue. Gr een Inter nati onal v. Sol

is, 951 S. W .2d 3 84, 3 90 (Tex . 199 7) ( re q uir ing the re cov er y of damag es as a prereq uis it e to the recov er y of attor ney ’s fees under §38.001 ). And, w e re ject thei r proposi ti on that becau se they need notp ay Phillips the rem aind er o f t he cont ract price the y

w ere ef fectively aw arde d da ma ges. T h e two a r e j u s tn o tt h e sa m e t h in g; e s c a p in g l ia b il it y d if fe rs f ro m o b t a in in g a f

f ir m a t ive
mo n e t a r y re l i e f. As for th e req uesti mpli cat ing the Proper ty C ode, §53.156 sta tes that in a c ase to forecl ose on a li en or to decl are a li en inv ali d, “ the c our t m ay a w ard costs a nd rea sona ble atto rney’s fees a s are equitab le and just.” T EX . P ROP . C OD E A NN . §53. 156 ( Ver non 200 7) (emp ha s is a d d e d). By use of the word “ ma y ,” howev er, the legi slature mad e the aw ard dis creti onar

y on t he par

t of the tr ial co urt; si mply put, i t nee d notaw ard c ost s o f fees ev en to a prev ail ing par

ty

. Tex as W ood Mi ll Cabi nets, Inc. v. Butler

, 1 1 7 S

. W

. 3 d 9 8 , 1 0 7 (T e x. App.–Ty ler

2003, no p et.) ; W

or ld Hel p v . Lei sur e Li fes tyle s, Inc ., 977 S. W .2d 6 62, 6 85 (Tex

. Ap p. –F or

t W or th 1 99 8, p et

. de ni ed )

. G i v en t hi s , w e c an no t s ay t ha t th e tr i al c ourt5

er re d i n deny ing the Vaug hans suc h fees atbar , es peci all y si nce the j ur

y found thatthey had indee d brea ched their cont ract w ith Phillips. Iss ue T hr ee Fi nal ly , t he Vau g hans arg ue th at t he tr ial courterred in fail ing to submi t a q uest ion t o t h e j u r y o n d e t r i m e n t a l re l i a n c e a s a n i n d e p e n d e n t b a s i s fo r re c o v e r i n g d a m a g e s . W e ov er ru le the i ss ue. Not ic eabl y

abs ent from the Vaug hans’ arg ument i s c it ati on to auth or ity i ndi cat ing tha t det rimen tal reliance is an in dep end entca use of action entitling one to dam ages. Th is is es peci all y

troubl esome becau se detr iment al re li ance nor mall y does not cons ti tute an ind ependentca use of acti on ent it li ng one to monet ar y recov er y . See U

niv er sity of T exas Sys . v . C our tney, 946 S.W .2d 4 64, 468 (Tex . App.–F ort W orth 19 97, w ri t den ied ) (s tati ng that detr iment al re li ance is not an i ndependen t t o rt ). Rat her , aut hor it ies treat i t as an eq uiv ale nt to c ontract ual promis sor y es toppel , id. , or as an ele me nt of prom issory

estop pel. Ludm an v

. Pa ci fic S outhwes t Ba nk, F.S.B

. , N o. 05 -9 6- 01128- CV , 199 8 Tex . Ap p. L E X IS 7516 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1998, no pet .) ( not d esi g nated f o r p u bli cat ion ). M oreov er , t he Vau ghans did not s e e kt h e s ubm ission of a question o n prom issory estop pel. Con seq uentl y , w e c annot say thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n s ubmitti ng the q uest ion

. Phi lli ps’ A pp eal Iss ue On e In t he first of tw o i ss ues, Phi ll ips co ntended thatthe ju ry ’s ans w er to a s ubsecti on of Quest ion N o. 4 lac ked ev ide nti ar y su ppor t, a n d b e ca use itdi d, t he ul ti mate ans w er prov ide d by

the jur y w as si mil ar ly

defic ien t. W e s ust ain the is sue.6

Th ro u gh ques ti on four, the jur y w as ask ed to as ses s t he amountof money that
w oul d c ompensat e Phi ll ip s for the damag es suffered from the V aug hans’ breach of cont ra ct. Among the v ar iou s indi ci a it w as direct ed to con si der i n ar ri v ing at the s um w as a prov is ion as ki ng the factfinder to deter mine the “reas onabl e and neces sar y co st of compl et[i ng ]” the cons tr uct ion proje ct. The j urors found t hat s um to be $51, 680. Phi ll ips q uest ion ed that findi ng si nce, in his v iew , no ev ide nce appears of record il lust ra ti n g that the w or k and charg es upon w hic h the sum w as based w ere reason abl e and neces sar y . Compl eti on c ost s mus t be re asona ble and neces sar y to be recov erabl e. Mu sta ng Pi pel ineC o. v

. D river Pi pel ineC o. , 134 S.W .2d 195, 200 (Tex

. 200 4 ). Further more, ev ide nce of w hat o ne pai d or w as charg ed to compl ete a proje ct is no e v ide nce that eit her the pay ment or charg e w as re asona ble and neces sar y . Id. at 200- 201. And, therein l ies th e pro b le m h e re . T h e Va u gha n s p ro f fe re d evid e n ce th a t a n o th e r co n tr a ct o r wou ld ch a rge them app ro x imat ely$ 7 5 ,0 0 0 to re pai r the d efici enci es in cons tr uct ion and compl ete t he proje ct. Y et, w hether

thos e c harg es w ere “reason abl e” w ent undev elo ped. The cont ra cto r did not so tes ti fy; n o r d id any one el se famili ar w it h the repai rs pur por tedl y needed to be don e. Again, the Vaugha ns me re ly t e n d e re d evidence of w hatone contract or w ould
c h a rg e th e m. A n d , i f Mu sta ng Pi pel ine is to be followed, w e cann ot bu t conclu de th at such infor mati on c onst it utes no e v ide nce of reas onabl eness . On th e oth er han d, w e can notagree w ith Phillips’ prop osition thathe proved as a matter of law thatthe re asona ble and neces sar y ex pense of compl eti on eq ual ed $250 0. T his is so becau se test imo ny app ears of record illustrating that the work con tem plate d in der iv ing thatsum omitted other w or k thoug ht neces sar y byothe r w it ness es. F or i nst ance,W hi l e T i l l ery m ay no t ha ve b ee n a n “ex pe rt , ” as argu ed at t ri al , on e n ee d no t al w ay s be an ex pe rt 3 to p ro ff e r re l e v a n t i n fo rm a ti o n a b o u t t h e n e c e s s i tyo f h o u s e re p a i rs . M cG al liard v. Kuhlm ann , 722 S. W

. 2d 6 9 4 , 6 9 7 (T e x . 1 9 8 6 ). 7 w itness T illery

opine d tha t the hom e’s foun dat ion had to be repaired as w ell, butthattask
w as omitted from the $2500 e sti mate prov ide d by Phi ll ips

. Thu s, t h e j u ryw as free t o

3
re ject t hat s um as bei ng i ndi cat iv e of the re asona ble and neces sar y co st of compl eti on. Gi v en th a t o n e o f

the sev eral ele ments upon w hic h the j ur y ’s ans w er

to q uest ion four dep ended l ack ed ev ide nti ar y su ppor t, w e must conc lud e that the u lt imat e ans w er w as si mil ar ly defic ien t. And, bec ause no ev ide nce appears of record w hic h w oul d enti tl e us to det ermin e the accurate sum a s a ma tter of law , w e ha v e no choice bu t to rem and the to pic. So t oo mus t t he i ss ue of breach b e r e m a n d e d g iv en th at l iab il ity w as dis puted. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.1( b) ( sta ti ng thatan a ppel lat e c our t c annot re mand s ole ly on the iss ue of unliquidat ed d am ages if liability w as dispu ted ). Is s ueT wo T hrou gh his second issue, Philli ps cont end s thatthe trial court erred in denying him attor ney ’s fees. Y et, in v iew of the record before us, w e cannot say that he pre v ail ed on any cl aim enti tl ing hi m to s uch fees at thi s p oin t. C onseq uentl y , w e ov er ru le the i ss ue. W e rev erse tho se p o rt ion s o f the j udg ment den y ing Phi ll ips recov er y ag ain st the Vaug hans for breach of cont ra cta n d ac cordin g the Vaug hans an offset of $51,68 0,
re mand the i s s u e s o f w h e t h e r t h e V a u g h a n s b re a c h e d t h e c o n t ra c ta n d t h e d a ma g es ar is ing from t he breach to t he tr ial co urt, and affirm the remaind er of the j udg ment.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice