T hr ougho ut t he t r i al cour t pr oceedi ngs a nd i n i t s app el l at e br i ef , BAB r ef er r ed t o Bar r i os as “ Bar r i os 1 T echnol ogi es, I nc. ” H owev er , B ar r i os’ s t r i al cour t pl eadi ngs and i t s appel l at e br i efm ake cl ear t hat i t s act ual n a m e i s “B a rr i o s T e c h n o l o g y , L td .” 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0030 9-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 OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
BA Y A REA B LV D., L TD ., A pp ellan t,
v . BA RR IOS T ECH NOL OGY, L TD ., A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 1th D istrict Co urt of H arris C ou nty , 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 Ga rza Appel lan t, Bay

Area Bl v d., Ltd. (“ BAB” ), appeal s t he tri al cour t’ s judg ment in fav or of appell ee, Bar ri os Technol og y , Ltd. (“ Bar ri os” ). By tw o i ss ues, BAB co ntends that : (1 ) 1 iti s e nti tl ed to a new tr ial under Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 34.6 (f) bec ause a tr ial
ex hib itw as los t and the subst it u te e xhibit i ncl uded i n the appel lat e record i s n ot an
acc ur ate d upl ic ate t her eof, see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 34.6( f); an d ( 2) the tr ial co urt er re d by

“ i mp rop er l y

i nt er pret i ng a c on trac t th atw as n ota mb i g uo us .” W e affi r m.T he l ease agr eem ent def i ned “ Pr oj ect O per at i ng Expenses” as, i nt er al i a, t ax pa y m ent s, i nsur ance 2 pr em i um s, ut i l i t i es, r epai r s, f ees, and ot her speci f i ed co st s and expe nses i ncur r ed b y BAB f or ope r at i ng a nd m ai nt ai ni ng O ne Cor por at e Pl az a.

BAB ’ s sui t was f i l ed a s tr i al c ou rt cause num ber 200 5- 20293 i n t he 1 1t h Jud i ci al D i st r i ct C our t of 3 H ar r i s C ount y , T exas. Bar r i os’ s sui t was or i gi nal l y cause num ber 2005- 39117 i n t he 2 34t h Jud i ci al D i st r i ct C our t of H ar r i s C ount y
. O n Sept em ber 13, 200 5, t r i al cour t cause num ber 200 5- 39117 was t r ansf er r ed f r om t he 2 34t h Di st r i ct C our t t o t he 1 1t h Di st r i ct C our t and t he m at t er s wer e con sol i dat ed u nder t r i al cour t cause num ber 200 5- 20293

. 2 I. B A CKGRO UND In 19 97, B ar ri os entered i nto a l ease ag re ement w ith Teache rs Ins ur ance and Annui ty As soc iat ion ( “TIA

A” ) for the l e a se of

off ic e proper

ty at One C or por ate P laz a, a bui ldi n g l ocat ed at2525 Bay Area Bou lev ard i n H oust on, Tex as. BA B, a l imi ted partn ership, subse quently acq uired th e prop erty f rom T IAAa n d b e cam e succe ssor in int er estunder

the le ase. The lea se, as am ended, prov ide d i n per ti nent par

t t hat B ar ri os
w as re spons ibl e for pay ing “A ddi ti onal R ent” bas ed on Bar ri os’ s p ro por ti onate share of the “P ro jec t O per ati ng Ex pense s” i ncur re d by BAB

. 2 After deci din g to mov e i ts off ic es els ew here, B ar ri os infor med BAB i n Dec e m b er 200 4 tha t it w ould not be renewing the lea se. A d is p u t e t h e n arose as to ho w much “A ddi ti onal R ent” w as ow ed by Bar ri os for 2004

. BAB cl aimed Bar ri os ow ed $32, 446.59; Bar ri os re fused to pay , c lai ming that this amount w as “w ro ng ful, ex ces si v e, and out of li ne
w it h pr ior y ears c harg es for Add it ion al Re nt,” and noti ng that its “Addi ti onal Rent” pay ments fo r 2 0 0 1 , 2 0 0 2 , a n d 2 0 0 3 we re o n ly $ 2 , 3 4 8 , $ 4 , 2 7 1 , a n d $ 1 , 5 1 4 , re s p e c t ive ly. BAB filed su itag ain st Bar ri os on Mar ch 25, 2005, seek ing pay ment of the addi ti onal
re nt i t bel iev ed w a s d ue. Bar ri os count ersued ag ain st BAB and D onal d R . H odg es, a member of B AB, on J une 16, 2005. I n i ts sui t, Bar ri os ple aded nu merou s c auses of act ion 3 includin g brea ch of

contract , sland er, and tortious int erferen c e w ith bu siness relatio ns, all eg ing that H o d ges f a ls ely tol d the D eputy

D irect or of Procurement atN ASA, one of Barrios’s largest custo me rs, tha t Barrios “did not pay its rent and dam a ge d t h e L e ase Prem ises w hen it mo v ed from the Bu ilding.” Barrios sought a ctua l dam ages, exemp lary damag es, att or ney ’s fees, and a decl ar ator y judg ment stati ng in part that Bar ri os did notH o d g e s is n o t a p a r ty t o th is a p p e a l. 4
T h is a p p e a l w a s tr a n s f e r r e d f r o m th e F o u r te e n th C o u r t o f A p p e a ls to th e T h ir te e n th C o u r t o fA p p e a ls 5 p u rs u a n t t o a n o rd e r i s s u e d b y th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f T e x a s
. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN

. § 73. 001 ( Ver non 20 05 ). 3 ow e any “ Addi ti onal R ent” for 2004 bec ause BAB had fail ed to produce “ detai led docu me nta ry

supp ort” for the “Project Operat ing Ex pen ses” it incurred in tha t y ear. After a benc h tr ial beg in n in g o n O ct o ber 9, 2006, the t ri al cour

t found i n fav or

of Bar ri os. The fina l jud g ment ent er ed by the cour t on N ov ember

16, 2006 aw arded Ba rr ios $42,448 .35 i n ac tual damag es and p rejud g ment i nterest , as w ell as $58, 500 i n tr ial attor ney ’s fees, an addi ti onal $10, 000 in attor ney ’s fees shoul d BAB file an uns ucc ess ful app eal in a court of

a ppe als, and a n add itiona l $ 5,0 00 in at torne y ’s fe es sho uld BA B f ile
an unsucc ess ful appeal in the Tex as Supr eme Cour t. T he order

al so prov ide d tha t BA B
w oul d tak e nothi ng by w ay of i ts sui t ag ain st Bar ri os and t hat B ar ri os w oul d tak e not hin g by w ay of

its suit against Hodges. 4 BAB filed i ts noti ce of appeal on Dec ember 14, 2006, and subs eq uentl y r eq uest ed 5 and pai d for the repor ter ’s r ecord of the tr ial co urt proceed ing s. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 5

. 3 (b ). T he Harris County Di strict Clerk’ s Of f ice provided the reporte r’s record to this Court in August o f

200 7; ho w ever, the record did not con tain a ny trial ex hibits. On Octo ber 22 , 200 7, BA B f iled w ith this Court a “Motion for Court’s Assistan ce in Det er mini ng How

Appell ant Shoul d Proc eed, or in the Al ter nati v e, Mot ion for N ew Tri al, ” noti ng thatthe tr ial ex hib it s h ad appa re ntl y been los t or

mis pla ced by

the cl er k. In
re spons e, w e i ss ued an order on N ov ember

20, 2007, abati ng the appeal and re mandin g the c ause to t he tr ial co urt t o co nducta he ar ing to deter mine w hether , as a resul t of the tr ial ex hib it s h av ing been los t, BAB w as entitl ed to a ne w tr ial under

Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 34.6 (f)

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 34 .6(f ) ( statin g t h a t a n ap pellan t is enti tl ed to a ne w

tr ial i f: ( 1) the appel lan t has ti mely r eq uested a re por

ter ’s r ecord; ( 2)
w it hout the a ppel lan t’ s faul t, a sig nific ant e x hib ithas been los t or des troy ed; ( 3) the los t or dest ro y e d e x h i b i ti s n e c e s s a r y t o t h e a p p e a l ’ s r e s o l u t i o n ; a n d ( 4 ) t h e l o s to r d est ro y ed4

ex hib it canno t be re pla ced eit her by ag re ement of t he par ti es or w it h a co p y d eter mined by the trial court to accura tely dup licate w ith reaso nab le certaint y the original exhibit). The tr ial co urt c onduc ted s uch a heari ng on Febr uar y 18, 2008. At the h ear ing , t he partie s agreed on accura te duplicate s of all the trial exhibits, except for tw o: BAB ’s Ex hibit 12 and Bar ri os’ s E x hib it97. Al thoug h BAB submi tted a subs ti tute v ersi on of i ts Ex hib it12, and Ba rr ios su bmit ted a su bst it ute v ersi on of i ts Ex hib it97, the p arti es did not ag re e tha t the se subst itute s w ere accurate duplicate s of the exhibits prod uced at tri al. Nev erthe less, the t ri al cour

t found th a t th e substi tute v ersi ons of Ex hib it s 1 2 and 97 w er e ac curate dupl ic ates and re nder ed an order st ati ng i n par

t: It is therefore O RD ER ED , AD JU DG ED and DE CR EED thatthe re pla cement copi es of the tr ia l e x hib it s a ttac hed t o thi s O rd er as Ex hib it“ A” , i ncl udi ng Defe n d a n t/ B a r r i o s E x h i b i tN o
. 9 7 a n d P l a i n t i ff’ s E x h i b i tN o
. 1 2 c o n t a ine d therein , ac curatel y

dupl ic ate w it h reason abl e c ertai nty the or ig ina l tr ial ex hib it s a dmit ted a t t he tr ial of t he abov e enti tl ed and numbered c ause, and that suc h repl acementcopies of the tr ial ex hib it s s hal l be made a par t of the re cord and used in the a ppeal of the a bov e ent it led and number ed c ause. The cour t al so noted in it s o rd er

that “Pl ain ti ff

Bay Area Bl v d., Ltd. made no v ali d s how ing that any l ostor des troy ed tr ial ex hib itadmi tted at t he tr ial of the a bov e ent it led and number ed c ause is nec ess ar y to the reso lu ti o n o f

the appeal of the a bov e ent it led and number ed c ause. ” W e rein sta ted t he appe al on M ar ch 14, 2 008. II. D I S CUS S I ON A
. Loss of Trial Exhi bits Und er Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 34.6 (f) , an appel lan t is enti tl ed to a ne w trial if: (1) the ap pellan t has tim ely requeste d a repo rter’s record; (2) w ithou t the app ellant ’s fault, a signif icant e x hibit ha s bee n lost or dest roy ed; (3) the lost or destro y ed e x hibit is
neces sar

y to the a ppeal ’s r esol uti on; a nd ( 4) the los t or des troy ed ex hib itc a n n o t be
re pla ced eit her

by ag re ement of the parti es or w it h a c opy dete rmi ned by

the tr ial co urt t o
acc ur atel y

dupl ic ate w it h reas onabl e cert ain ty the or ig ina l ex hib it

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 34 .6(f ). The appel lan t has the burden of es tabl is hin g that the mis si ng ex hib it is neces sar y to the
re sol uti on o f

the appeal

. See Palm er v. Espey Huston & Asso cs. , 84 S.W .3d 3 45, 3 525

(Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet. deni ed) ; see als o Par ker v. L ancon , N o. 13- 00- 611- CV , 200 4 Tex . A pp. L EX IS 7 236, at * 4 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Aug . 12, 200 4, no pet .) (mem

. op. ). W e ma y not reverse a trial court’s dete rmina tion u nde r this rule unl ess the er ro r compl ain ed of probabl y ca used the re ndi ti on of an improper jud g ment or pr ev ented an appell ant f ro m proper ly prese nti ng the cas e to the appel lat e court. Pal m er , 8 4 S. W .3 d at35 1 (cit in g T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44 .1). The follo w ing f act s a re undi sput ed: (1 ) BAB ti mely r eq uest ed a re por

ter ’s r ecord; (2 ) w i t h o u t B A B ’ s fa u l t , t h e t r i a l e x h i b i t s w e r e l o s t o r d e s t ro y e d ; ( 3 ) t h e p a rt i e s c o u l d not agree on rep lacem ent s for BAB’s Exhibit 12 an d Barrios’s Exhibit 97; an d (4) the trial court deter mined that the s ubst it ute c opi es of E x hib it s 12 and 97 submi tted at the F ebr uar y 18, 200 8 he aring w ere accu rate du plicate s of the original v ersions pro duce d at trial. BA B arg ue s b y

i ts fi rs t i s s ue t ha t th e s ub s ti tu te E x hi bi t 97 , a c ha rt pu r po rte dly it emiz ing the 2004 op er ati ng ex pense s for One Cor por ate P laz a, w as act ual lyn ot an
acc ur ate d upl ic ate o f the or ig ina l Ex hib it 97. To suppo rti ts arg ument, BAB re li es sol ely on the t ri al tes ti mony

of John Edw ards, Bar ri os’ s d irect or of finance . In i ts appel lat e br ief, B AB poi nts to my ri ad ex amples of Edw ards tes ti fyi ng w it h referenc e to a doc um e n t t hat d oes not a ppear

to match up w it h the su bst it ute E x hib it97. F or ex ample: p. 157, l. 24 t o p. 158, l. 20: W it ness q uest ion ed c oncer nin g admini strati on c harg es. W it ness tes ti fies to $1 9,614 fig ur e; [ subs ti tute] Ex hib it97 t otal s $ 21,980 for admi nis trati on. p. 159, ll . 1- 9: W itness quest ione d con cerning ban k ch a rg es. W it ness tes ti fies to $1 78. [Subs ti tute] Ex hib it97 s how s z ero.

. . . . p. 24, l. 19 t o p. 25, l. 12: W it ness q uest ion ed c oncer nin g first and secon d colum n of

[origi nal] Exhibit 97 . W itness te stif ies tha t f irst colum n is cat eg or y of document s on ori g ina l re nt de mand and sec ond c olu mn i s a ctu al am oun t on ad dition al rent d e m a n d . Th e f irst column of [subst itute ] Exhibit 97 s how s t he g eneral cat eg or ies on t he add it io n al re nt de mand, an d the s e c o n d co lu m n sh o ws fo r [ s ic ] t o t a l o f e a c h a d d it io n a l r e n tge n e ra l c a t e go ry, w hic h i s c onsi ste nt w it h Pl ain ti ff ’s ( Appel lan t’ s) Ex hib it2. p. 25, l l. 13- 21: W it ness q uest ion ed c oncer nin g next c olu mn forw ard. Such co lumn w oul d be the thi rd col umn. W it ness tes ti fies he or ig ina ll y tr iedN ei t her par t y di sput es t hat t he docum ent Edwar ds r ef er s t o i n t he e xcer pt ed p or t i on o fhi s t est i m ony 6 i s not t he sa m e as t he subst i t ut e Exhi bi t 97 pr oduced at t he Febr uar y 18, 200 8 he ar i ng. However , t he t r i al r ecor d do es no t cl ear l y est abl i sh t hat E dw ard s w as act ual l y r ef er r i ng t o Exhi bi t 97 when he m ade t he excer pt ed r em ar k s.

M o r e o v e r , B a r r io s n o te s th a t E d w a r d s ’ te s tim o n y does subst ant i al l y m at ch up wi t h a di ff er ent e x h i b i t— B a rr i o s ’ s E x h i b i t 9 4 , w h i c h i s a c h a rt a n a l y zi n g th e a c c u ra c y o f B A B ’ s o p e ra ti n g e x p e n s e fi g u re s
. It i s app ar ent t o t hi s C our t t hat Exhi bi t 94, not Exhi bi t 97, i s t he d ocum ent t o whi ch Edwar ds r ef er r ed. 6 to de ter mine w hic h BAB ( Appel lan t) g eneral led g er ac count s c or re spond ed to ea ch li ne i tem of the addi ti onal r end [ si c] demand, and s uch infor mati on w as re flect ed i n the next c olu mn. The thi rd column of [subs ti tute] Ex hib it97 is enti tl ed “ General Ledg er Ac count#s .”

. . . . [ Etc .]

. . . . (E mp h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l

. ) B A B a rg u e s t h a tt h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s b e tw e e n t h e d e s cr ipt ion s prov ide d by

Edw ards and t he fig ur es li ste d on the s ubst it ute E x hib it97 rev eal thatthe subst itute is not an accu rate du plicate of the original. W it hout re achi ng the is sue of w hether the subs ti tute is i ndeed a n ac curate d upl ic ate of the or ig ina l, w e not e tha t BA B fail s t o establ is h that Ex hib it97 is a “ si g nific ant” ex hib it , 6
see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 34. 6(f )(2), or tha t it is “nece ssary to the app eal’s resolut ion,” see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 34.6( f)( 3)

. BAB all eg es g enerall y thatthe char

t “ ser v ed as a ba si s for

the Appel lee ’s i nter pr etati on o f t he addi ti onal r ent p ro v is ion made t he bas is of thi s l aw sui t.” How ev er , t he c h a rtthatco mpri ses Ex hib it97 w as merel y a s ummary

of Edw ards’ note s
re g ardin g operati ng ex pense ca lc ula ti ons made by H odg es. I n other w ords, Ex hib it97 w as a demons trati v e ex hib itthat , alt h o u g h admi ss ibl e, c oul d nothav e i ndependen tl y formed a bas is upon w hic h the tr ier of factmay hav e reache d a c oncl usi on reg ardin g any matte r in dis pute. See Prestige Ford Co. v. Gilm ore , 56 S.W .3d 7 3, 79 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th Dist.] 200 1, pe t. de nied ) ( “[I]f a de m o n s t rativ e exhibit conta ins factu al informa tion th at is not i n ev ide nce, i t w oul d be er ro r to sh o w th e e xhibi t t o the j ur y .” ); see als o U

nir oyal Goodr ich T ir e C o. v . M ar ti nez , 977 S .W .2 d 32 8, 3 42 ( Tex

. 19 98 ) ( “ C ha rts a nd d i ag r am s t h a ts u mm a r i z e , o r

p e r h a p s e mp h a s i z e , t e s t i mo n y a r e a d mi s s i b le if

th e under

ly ing information ha s bee n adm itted in to evide nce, o r is subse que ntly admitted into eviden ce .” (E mphasi s a dded.) ). W e the re fore c oncl ude that BAB fail ed to ov er come i ts burden ofW e no t e t hat BAB does not poi nt t o any t hi ng i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat i ng t hat ei t her par t y ar gued at t r i al 7 t h a t a n y p r o v i s i o n o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g l e a s e wa s a m b i g u o u s
. Ra t h e r , t h e d i s p u t e c e n t e r e d on t he p ar t i es’ conf l i ct i ng cl ai m s r egar di ng t he a m ount of “ Pr oj ect O per at i ng Expen ses” i ncur r ed b y BAB i n 20 04. 7 est abl is hin g that Ex hib it 97 is neces sar y to t he resol uti on of the appeal

. See Palm er , 84 S.W .3d at 351 . Accordingly , BAB is not entitle d to a n ew trial. W e o ve rr u le B A B’s f irst is sue. B. Contract Interpretation B y i t s s e cond issue, BAB argues simply tha t “the trial court erred byimprop erly int er pr eti ng a cont ra ct thatw as not ambig uous. ” In suppo rtof i ts arg ument, BAB poi nts to
w ell -e sta bli shed cas e l aw r eg ardin g co ntractco nst ru cti on. See Am

. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sc h a e fer

, 12 4 S. W .3 d 15 4, 1 57 ( Tex

. 20 03 ) ( “ An a mb i g ui ty e x i s ts o nl y

i f t he c on tr act lan g uag e is sus cept ibl e to tw o or more reason abl e i nter pr etati ons. ”) ; DeW itt Coun ty Elec. Coop ., Inc. v. Parks , 1 S.W .3d 96, 100 (Tex . 199 9) ( “The lan g uag e i n an ag re ement i s t o be giv en its plain gram ma tical me anin g un less to do so w ould def eat the pa rties’ intent .”); MCI Telecom m s. Cor

p. v . T ex. U ti ls . Elec. C o. , 9 9 5 S

. W

. 2 d 6 4 7 , 6 5 0 , 6 5 1 ( Te x
. 1 9 99) (“ W hen a cont ra ct is not ambig uous, the cons tr uct ion of the w ri tten ins tr ument i s a q uest ion of law for the co urt. . . . W e revi ew the trial court’s leg al conclu sions de novo.”). Bar ri os arg ues that BAB has faile d i n i ts sec ond iss ue to “ adeq uatel y ar ti cul ate a nd br ief” an i ss ue for thi s C our t t o re v iew

. W e ag re e. An app ell ant’ s b ri ef must c ontai n a c lea r and conci se arg ument for the cont enti ons made, w it h appropr iat e c it ati ons to au thor it ies and to the re cord. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( i) . BAB d oes not i ndi cat e w hat, if any , prov is ion s of the l e a s e a g r e e me n t i t b e l i e v e s t h e t r i a l c o u rt “ i mp ro p e r l y i n t e r p r e t [ e d ]

. ” B A B does 7
arg ue th at “ the t ri al cour t er re d w hen i t i mprop er ly ex cl uded c omponents of the a ddi ti onal
re nt c alc ula ti ons that w er e s peci fical ly a u th o rize d i n the Leas e betw een t he par ti es. ” How ev er , t o the extent that thi s a lle gat io n may be c onst ru ed as a c hal len g e to the l eg al suffici ency

of the e v ide nce, see City of K eller v. Wils on , 168 S.W .3d 8 02, 8 14 ( Tex . 200 5) (“ [A]n appel lat e c our

t c onduc ti ng a l eg al suffici ency r ev iew ca nnot dis re g ard undis p u ted
ev ide nce that all ow s o f only one log ical i nferenc e.” ), BAB has not ci ted a ny auth or it y

or8

made any

arg ument s peci fical ly

su ppor ti ng su ch a c hal len g e. Acc ord in gly, BAB has waiv ed any

er ro r in thi s reg ard. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( i) ; Co lu mb ia Rio G ra n d e R e g ’l Hos p. v . Stover , 17 S.W .3d 387, 392 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2000, no pet .) ( sta ti ng that is sues not suppo rt ed by arg ument and authori ty are deemed w aiv ed)

. BAB’ s s econd i ss ue is ov er ru led

. III
. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 16t h day

of Apr il , 200 9.