Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 20, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

___________________

NO. 14-11-00054-CV

___________________

STUDIO WORKS, Appellant

V.

LARRY BRUCE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2006-79908

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In this breach-of-contract action, Studio Works sued two defendants for failing to 

pay for its work, and appeals the trial court’s judgment imposing liability on only one 

defendant. Because the judgment is based on factual findings that are supported by the 

record and on correct conclusions of law, we affirm. 
2

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Studio Works created materials promoting the services of a company identified in 

those materials as ―AIMData.‖1 That is virtually the only uncontested fact in this case. 

Studio Works maintains that it was hired by Larry Bruce and performed all of the 

work at issue for Bruce in his individual capacity. Studio Works’s only witness, Jack 

Erdeljac, testified that Bruce contacted Studio Works about preparing promotional 

materials on an expedited basis. According to Erdeljac, Studio Works performed the 

work and had it delivered to Bruce at a convention. Erdeljac testified that after the 

convention, Studio Works created and revised additional promotional materials at Bruce’s 

request. Bruce’s own photograph appears in some of the material. According to 

Erdeljac, Bruce spent hours in Studio Works’s office working with the company’s staff in 

revising and editing the material. The company also produced employee timesheets in 

which employees identified their work by client and project. In the timesheets, Bruce was 

identified as the client. Although Studio Works sent repeated invoices for the work, it was 

never paid. 

Bruce, on the other hand, denied calling or visiting Studio Works, receiving 

material or demand letters from them, or ever meeting Erdeljac. He acknowledged that he 

attended the convention Erdeljac mentioned and testified that he was employed by 

AIMData, Inc. at that time, but he maintained that Studio Works could have learned that 

information from the internet. 

 

1 Two companies with names similar to this were discussed at trial. AIM Data, LLC was a 

defendant in the case. AIMData Inc. was the employer of defendant Larry Bruce. Because trial 

testimony is transcribed according to the way that words sound, all references in the transcript to ―AIM 

Data‖ or ―AIMData‖ appear simply as ―Aim Data.‖ 
3

Studio Works sued Bruce and AIM Data, LLC for its unpaid bills. Both defendants 

were served, but AIM Data, LLC did not answer the suit. The case was tried without a 

jury, and the trial court granted judgment against AIM Data, LLC. 

In response to Studio Works’s request, the trial court also made the following 

findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact

1. Defendant Aim Data contracted with plaintiff Studio Works to 

perform certain work.

2. Defendant Larry Bruce did not engage or contract with Studio Works 

for himself or in his individual capacity.

3. Plaintiff Studio Works was aware that it was doing business with Aim 

Data and not for Larry Bruce personally.

4. Plaintiff Studio Works incurred reasonable and necessary attorneys’

fees in the amount of $5,000.

Conclusions of Law

1. Defendant Aim Data is obligated to pay to plaintiff Studio Works the 

sum of $24,535 plus $5,000 in attorneys’ fees.

2. Defendant Larry Bruce did not enter into an agreement with Studio 

Works to be personally responsible for Studio Works’s bill.

After the trial court denied its motion for new trial, Studio Works brought this appeal. 

II. ISSUES PRESENTED

In its first three issues, Studio Works challenges the trial court’s first three findings

of fact, and in its fourth and fifth issues, it challenges the trial court’s two conclusions of 

law. 
4

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In cases tried without a jury, the trial court’s findings of fact have the same force and 

dignity as a jury’s verdict, and when a complete reporter’s record is filed, we review the 

trial court’s findings for evidentiary sufficiency under the same standards we apply to jury 

verdicts. Green v. Alford, 274 S.W.3d 5, 23 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. 

denied) (en banc). To analyze the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting a finding, 

we review the record in the light most favorable to the factual findings, crediting favorable 

evidence if a reasonable factfinder could and disregarding contrary evidence unless a 

reasonable factfinder could not. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex.

2005). A party attacking the legal sufficiency of an adverse finding on an issue on which 

he bore the burden of proof must demonstrate that the evidence establishes, as a matter of 

law, all vital facts in support of the issue. Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 

(Tex. 2001). 

In evaluating a factual sufficiency challenge, we consider and weigh all the 

evidence in a neutral light and will set aside the finding only if the evidence is so weak or 

the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is 

clearly wrong and unjust. Id. at 242. We defer to a trial court’s factual findings if they 

are supported by evidence. Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580, 598 (Tex. 2008).

We review the legal conclusions that the trial court drew from the facts to determine 

their correctness. BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex.

2002). Incorrect conclusions of law will not require a reversal if the controlling findings 

of fact will support the judgment under a correct legal theory. BACM 2001–1 San Felipe 

Road L.P. v. Trafalgar Holdings I, Ltd., 218 S.W.3d 137, 143 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). 
5

IV. ANALYSIS

A. The record supports the finding that AIM Data, LLC contracted with Studio 

Works.

In its first finding of fact, the trial court found that AIM Data, LLC ―contracted with 

Studio Works to perform certain work.‖ The trial court further stated in its first 

conclusion of law that AIM Data, LLC ―is obligated to pay to plaintiff Studio Works the 

sum of $24,535, plus $5,000 in attorneys’ fees.‖ Although Studio Works states in its first 

and fourth issues that this factual finding and legal conclusion are erroneous, both actually 

favor Studio Works. Moreover, Studio Works does not contend that the amount of 

damages awarded is incorrect. As we understand it, Studio Works instead contends that 

the record does not support the finding that the entity that contracted with Studio Works 

was AIM Data, LLC. 

The factual finding is supported by the record because this defendant was served but 

did not answer. A defendant that fails to answer a suit admits all of the plaintiff’s factual 

allegations against it except for the amount of unliquidated damages. Dolgencorp of Tex., 

Inc. v. Lerma, 288 S.W.3d 922, 930 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam); Hufco-Beaumont, LLC v. 

Johnson, No. 14-10-01011-CV, 2011 WL 2462195, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] June 21, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.). Studio Works alleged in its petition that it 

performed services for AIM Data, LLC or delivered goods to it at the company’s ―special 

instance and request,‖ and the company received the benefit and value of these goods or 

services. This is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that AIM Data, LLC 

contracted with Studio Works, and based on that finding, the trial court correctly concluded 

that AIM Data, LLC is liable to pay for Studio Works’s services. We therefore overrule 

Studio Works’s first and fourth issues. 
6

B. The record also supports the finding that Larry Bruce did not contract with 

Studio Works in his individual capacity.

Studio Works addresses its remaining issues together. In its second issue, Studio 

Works asserts that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial 

court’s finding that Bruce ―did not engage or contract with Studio Works for himself or in 

his individual capacity.‖ Studio Works argues in its third issue that there is insufficient 

evidence to support the trial court’s finding that ―Studio Works was aware that it was doing 

business with Aim Data and not for Larry Bruce personally.‖ In its fifth issue, Studio 

Works challenges the trial court’s related finding that Bruce did not agree to be personally 

responsible for Studio Works’s bill.2 Studio Works does not differentiate among these 

issues, but has presented a single argument that it contends applies to them all. According 

to Studio Works, the evidence shows that Bruce arranged for Studio Works’s services 

without disclosing that he was acting on behalf of a company, and thus, Bruce is liable in 

his individual capacity. Cf. Latch v. Gratty, Inc., 107 S.W.3d 543, 546 (Tex. 2003) (―[A]n 

agent who signs a contract on behalf of an undisclosed principal is liable on the contract.‖) 

(citing Heinrichs v. Evins Personnel Consultants, Inc., No. One, 486 S.W.2d 935, 937 

(Tex. 1972)). 

The evidence, however, is conflicting. On one hand, Erdeljac testified that Studio 

Works’s employees noted on their timesheets that Larry Bruce was the client for whom the 

work was performed. Erdeljac also testified that when he met with Bruce to discuss the 

work, Bruce did not mention ―Aim Data,‖ and Bruce testified that to his knowledge, 

AIMData, Inc. did not engage Studio Works to do anything. On the other hand, the work 

consisted of the preparation of promotional and marketing material for ―AIMData.‖ One

invoice was directed to ―Larry Bruce, Aim Data Inc.‖ but another contained no mention of 

Bruce and was directed simply to ―Aim Data Inc.‖ At trial, Erdeljac was asked if Bruce 

 

2 Although it is listed as a conclusion of law, this instead appears to be a factual finding.
7

had said, ―We’re doing this work for my company,‖ and Erdeljac answered, ―He said for 

his company.‖

Faced with conflicting evidence, the factfinder ―may choose which witnesses to 

believe and may resolve inconsistencies in any witness’s testimony.‖ Spring Creek Vill. 

Apartments Phase V v. Gen. Star Indem. Co., 261 S.W.3d 206, 216–17 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] no pet.) (citing McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694, 

697 (Tex. 1986)). On this record, a reasonable factfinder could have resolved the 

inconsistencies by attaching little weight to Studio Works’s internal references to Bruce as 

a client or to Erdeljac’s statements that Bruce did not claim to be acting on Aim Data’s 

behalf. The remaining evidence—which includes Erdeljac’s testimony that Bruce said 

Studio Works was working ―for his company,‖ the nature of the work itself, and an invoice

addressed solely to ―Aim Data Inc.‖—is legally sufficient to support the trial court’s 

findings. Moreover, this evidence is not so weak, and the controverting evidence is not so 

strong, as to make the trial court’s findings clearly wrong and unjust; thus, the evidence 

also is factually sufficient to support the trial court’s findings. We therefore overrule 

Studio Works’s second, third, and fifth issues.

V. CONCLUSION

Having found no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Tracy Christopher

Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Christopher and Jamison.