### NUM BER 13-08- 291- 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
M A RGA RIT O T RU JIL LO, A pp ellan t,

v . BOB BY BU RR OWS, SR. A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 2 06t h Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es 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 appeal i s fr om a t ri al cour t ju d g ment g ra nted in fav or of appel lee , Bo bby B u rr o ws, S r. , a n d a ga in s ta p p e ll a n t , Ma rg a ri t o T ru ji ll o
. On a p p e a l, T ru ji ll o ra is e s two i s s ue s , c on te s ti ng o nl y t he a w ard of p r ej ud g me nti nt er es t. W e affi r m.2 I. B A CKGRO UND T he f acts of

this case are, for the m ost pa rt, und ispute d. Burrows and Trujillo w ere f r i e n d s. Tr u jil lo be ca m e awar e of an op p o rt u n it y to b u y 38 .8 ac re s o f la n d in Ed in b u rg. B e c a u s e h e d id n o t h a ve t h e m o n e y t o p u rc h a s e t h e p ro p e rt y, T ru ji ll o a p p ro a c h e d B u rr o ws
w it h the i dea of

purch asi ng it w it h him. The par ti es pur chas ed th e proper ty j oin tl y i n 1998 for app rox ima tely $93 ,00 0. It is undisp ute d tha t Tru jillo negotiate d the p ri c e and paid $5, 000 in earn est mone y . Burrows reimb ursed Trujillo the $5,0 00 in ea rnest m one y , paid the e nti re pur chas e pr ic e and pai d al l tax es ow ed on the p ro per ty and ex pense s as they
w er e i ncur re d. In 20 07, Truj il lo filed su itag ain st Bur ro w s s eeki ng a pa rt it ion of the p ro per ty
a n d a p ro p o rt io n a t e s h a re o f e xp e n d it u re s fo r th e m a in t e n a n c e a n d ca re o f t h e p ro p e rt y. Bur ro w s c ounter cl aimed, se eki ng r eimbursementfor a ll su ms of m oney spent on the car e,
ma int ena nce, upke ep a nd p reservation of the pro perty. Burrow s also sought a ttorn ey’s fees and pr eju dg ment i nter est

. Before the c ase w ent t o tr ial , t he par ti es ag re ed to se ll the pr oper ty to a thi rd par

ty for $5, 000,000

. Theyeac h r ecei v ed $2, 500,000 f ro m the s ale pr oceed s. Ther eafter, the partie s agreed that Trujillo w as no t ent itled to any r eim burse me nt f rom Bu rrow s. Af ter a bench tr ial , the tri al cour t deter mined thatT ru ji ll o ow ed Burrow s $100,588. 60, w hic h w as
one- hal f of

the amount B ur ro w s h ad ex pended. The t ri al cour t al so deter mined that B u rr o ws wa s e n t it le d t o $ 1 7 , 5 0 0 in a t t o r n e y ’ s fe e s , wh ic h is n o tco n t e s t e d

. Ad d it io n a ll y, th e c o urt order ed pr eju dg ment i nter estfrom t he dat e Bur ro w s i ncur re d eac h of the ind iv idu al ex pense s. The pr eju dg ment int er esttot ale d $54, 167.02 w it h an addi ti onal per die m amount o f

$22. 73 due for eac h day after Ja nuar y 22, 2008, unti l ex ecut ion of the jud g me n t

. Th e t r i a l c o u rt e n t e r e d j u d g me n t a c c o r d i n g l y a n d fi l e d fi n d i n g s o f fa c t and3

c o n c lu s io n s o f

la w. Truj il lo filed a mot ion f o r new tr ial i n w hic h he g ener all y co mplai ned t hat t he judgme nt erron eou sly

aw arde d bot h prejud gmen t and post-jud gmen t interest . On app eal, Tr uj i l l o c ha l l en g es o nl y

t he a w ard of pr ej ud g me ntin te r es t. By h i s fi r s t i s s ue , Tr uj i l l o c l ai ms that “t he tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is cr eti on by aw ar d i n g pr eju dg ment i nter estag ain st appel lan t becau se the e v ide nce w as leg all y and factual ly

insuffici ent to suppor

t the aw ar d and w as other w is e ar bit ra ryand capr ic iou s w it hout re ferenc e to appl ic abl e r ule s o r g uid ing pr inc ipl es. ” Byhis sec ond iss ue he ar g ues that the t ri al cour t er re d i n aw ar din g near ly ten y ear s’ of pr eju dg ment i nter estbec ause he had no notic e of a cl aim for inter estpr ior to the ti me Bur ro w ’s fil ed hi s c ounter cl aim. II. A PPLI C A B LE L A W A. S t a n d a r d o f

R e v i e w W e rev iew

the tr ial court 's pr eju dg ment int er estaw ar d under an abus e of di sc re ti on sta ndar d. W

ilm er-Hutchins In dep . Sch. Dist. v. Sm iley, 9 7 S

. W

. 3 d 7 0 2 , 7 0 6 (T e x. App.–D all as 2003, pet. deni ed)

. T o det ermin e if t here was a n abu se of

discretion, w e mu st deci de i f t he low er cour

t act ed ar bit ra ri ly , unr eason abl y , or w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing
ru les or pr inc ipl es. Downer v. Aquam ar ine Oper ator s, Inc ., 7 0 1 S

. W

. 2 d 2 3 8 , 2 4 1 -4 2 (T e x. 198 5). B. C o- Ten ancy The par ti es her e w er e c o- tenant s. On par ti ti on, a co -t enant w ho ex pends funds
nece ssary to protect or prese rv e the com mo n prop erty is ent itled to h a ve t hose
ex pendi tur es charge d t o t h e ten ants i n c ommon acc or din g to thei r pr o r ata o w ner shi p.4

G o n za le z v

. G o n za le z, 5 52 S.W .2d 1 77, 1 81 (T ex. C iv . App .–Corp us Christi 1977 , w rit r ef 'd
n.r.e .). Expend itures necessary to preserv e the com mo n prop erty include tho se for taxes, ins ur ance, and re pai rs
. See D uke v. Squi bb, 3 9 2 S

. W

. 2 d 8 8 5 , 8 8 8 (T e x. Ci v. App.–Tex ar kana 1965, no w ri t) ; see a lso Hill v. Jarvis , N o
. 1 2
- 0 7
- 0 0 0 9 1 , 2 0 0 8 WL 257 175 3 at *2 (Tex. App. –T y ler June 3 0, 20 08, pet de nied ). C. Pr ej ud gm entIn te rest Prejud gmen t intere st is a w arde d to f ully co mp ensa te the in jured party, not to pun ish the d efendant. Johns on & Hi ggi ns of Tex ., Inc

. v. Kennec o Ener gy, Inc ., 962 S. W .2d 5 07, 528 ( Tex . 199 8) ; C & H Nati onwide, Inc . v

. T hom pson , 903 S .W .2d 3 15, 327 (Tex. 1994 ). It is co nsi der ed c ompensatio n al low ed by l aw as addi ti onal damag es for l ostus e of the money due betw een the acc ru al of t he cl aim and the date o f ju d g ment

. Johns on & Hi ggi ns , 962 S.W .2d a t 528

. There ar e tw o l eg a l so u rce s f or an a w ar d of pr eju dg ment i nter est : (1 ) g ener al pr inc ipl es of eq uit y , and (2 ) an enabl ing sta tute. John son & Higg ins, 962 S.W .2d a t 528 ; d e l a G a r za v . de l a G a r za , 185 S .W .3d 9 24, 9 28 (Te x . App .–Dallas 200 6, no pet. ). W here
no s tatut e c ontrols the aw ar d of pr eju dg ment i nter est , t he dec is ion to aw ar d pr eju dg ment intere st is left to the soun d discretion of the trial court, w hich sh o u ld r e ly upo n equitab le pr inc ipl es and pub li c p oli cy i n maki ng thi s d eci si on. Citizens Nat . Ban k v

. Al len R ae Inve stm ents, Inc. , 1 4 2 S .W .3d 459 , 487 (Tex. App. –Ft. W orth 20 04, no pe t.). How ever,
once the trial court d e cides to aw ard equitab le prejud gmen t interest , the trial court must follo w the acc ru al ru le setforth i n the enabl ing st atute

. Se e J oh ns on & Higgins, 962 S.W .2d a t 531 . Unde r the s tatut or y ac cr ual formul a, pr eju dg ment i nter estbeg ins to acc ru eN otab l y , al t ho ug h T ruji l l o argu es t ha t B urrow s i s no t en t i t l ed t o prejud gm en t i nteres t be c au s e t he re 1 was no agr eem ent bet ween t he p ar t i es r egar di ng p r ej udgm ent i nt er es t , he, t oo, soug ht r ecov er y f or p re ju d g m e n t i n te re s t i n h i s p a rti ti o n l a w s u i t. 5 o n t h e e a r l i e r

o f t h e 1 8 0 t h d a y

a ft e r t h e d a t e the d e fe n d a n tr e c e i v e s w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f a
c l a i m o r t h e d a t e t h e s u i t is fil ed. T EX
. F IN
. C OD E A NN . § 304.104 ( Ver non 200 6) ; de la G a r za , 185 S.W .3d a t 928 ; see Jo hnso n & Higgins, 962 S.W .2d at 531 ( appl y ing former
v er si on of sec ti on 304. 104)

. III . D I S CUS S I ON Trujillo f irs t arg ues that ther e i s n o ev ide nce to s uppor t t he tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on to award prejudgme nt inte rest. Both pa rties agree that there is no co ntrolling statut e, so, if 1 intere st is prop er it mu st be based on principles of equity . Th e trial court he ard evidence that Bur ro w s p aid ev er

y thi ng nec ess ar

y to sec ur e and maint ain the pr oper ty dur ing the nin e y ears tha t the p arties w ere co-ten ant s. Th is ev iden ce w as un dispu ted . Althou gh Trujillo pai d the i nit ial $5,0 00 as ear nestmoney , Bu rrow s r eimbursed him for th at amoun t. The par ti es ag re ed th a t theyhad nev er di sc uss ed or

ag re ed upon any

form of pr eju dg ment int er est

. How ev er , t he l aw al lows p re ju d gm ent i nter estto compens ate for the use of money
. Johns on & Hi

ggi ns , 962 S.W .2d a t 528

. The ev ide nce w as undi sput ed th at al l of the mone y

us ed for maint enanc e, up keep and pre se rvat ion of the p ro per ty bel ong ed to Bur ro w s. W e find that the tr ial cour t did not abuse it s dis creti on i n aw ar din g pr eju dg ment int er estfor i ts use. W e ov er ru le Truj il lo’ s first is sue. By h is se cond is sue Truj il lo cl aims thatthe tr ial co ur t er re d i n i ts method o f cal cul ati ng the amount o f the aw ar d of prej udg ment inter est

. The tr ial courtcalc ula ted t he
a wa rd b a s e d u p o n e a c h p a ym e n t m a d e b y B u rr o ws f ro m t h e d a t e o f p a ym e n t

. Bu rr o ws6

ar g ues that Truj il lo has faile d to pr eser v e hi s c omplai nt on appeal

. W e ag re e. Truj il lo’ s mot ion for n ew tr ial co m p lains of the a w ar d of pr eju dg ment i nter est , but does not c omplai n tha t i ts method o f cal cul ati ng the a ward wa s i mprop er
. In order to pr eser v e an is sue for appe ll ate r ev iew , t he r ecord mustr eflect that the i ss ue w as br oug ht to t he tr ial cour

t’ s atten ti on by a ti mely and suffici entl y spec ificr eq uest , obj ect ion or moti on. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3 .1(a) (2 ). D ur ing tr ial , t he par ti es dis cus sed the p ro pr iet y of aw ar din g pr eju dg ment i nter est , butthey di d notr ais e how

i nter estw oul d be cal cul ated. The moti on for new tr ial d o es not c omplai n of the manner i n w hic h the tr ial co urt c alc ula ted t he prejud gmen t intere st. Furthe r, the court’s docket sheet r ef lects tha t no hearing w as he ld on th e moti on fo r new

tr ial

. Beca use Truj il lo did not appr is e the tr ial co urt of the all eg ed
er ro r thathe now

complai ns of, the error w as not preser

v ed. Baye r Corp. v. DX Term inals, Ltd. , 214 S.W .3d 5 86, 6 11 ( Tex . Ap p.–H ousto n [14t h D is t.] 2007, pet. deni ed) ; W olfha rt
v. Hol loway , 1 7 2 S

. W. 3 d 6 3 0 , 6 4 0 ( T e x . A p p
. – H o u s t o n [ 1 4 t h D i s t

. ] 2 0 0 5 , p e t

. d e n i e d )

. W e
ov er ru le Truj il lo’ s s econd i ss ue. IV. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

RO SE VELA J u s t i c e
Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 nd day

of Apr il , 200 9.