### NO. 13-15-00095-CV In the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District at Corpus Christi/Edinburg

___________________________ Nadir N. Ali and Mumtaz Ali, Appellants,

v.

Flessner Enterprises, Inc., Appellee.

____________ F ROM THE 

### 135 J UDICIAL 

### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT TH OF 

### D E 

### W ITT 

### C OUNTY 

### , T EXAS 

### , THE 

### H ONORABLE 

### S TEPHEN 

### W ILLIAMS 

### , P RESIDING



### ________________________________

A PPELLEE 

### ’ S 

### B RIEF



### ___________________________________________ C YNTHIA T. S HEPPARD SBN 20245500 L AW O FFICE OF C YNTHIA T. S HEPPARD

P OST O FFICE 67 C UERO , T EXAS 77954 (361) 277-8539 (361) 277-8571 ( FAX ) SHEPP 04@ MSN

. COM A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLEE ACCEPTED 13-15-00095-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 7/30/2015 3:00:37 PM CECILE FOY GSANGER

CLERK

### NO. 13-15 -000 95 -CV
In the Co urt of

Appeals fo r the Thirteenth District at Corp us Ch risti/Edin bu rg

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Nadir N. Ali and Mum

taz Ali, App ellants,
v.

Flessn er E nterprises , Inc., App ellee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ F R O M T H E 

### 13 5 J U D I C I A L 

### D I S T R I C T 

### C O U R T TH O F 

### D E 

### W I T T 

### C O U

N T Y 

### , T E X A S 

### , T H E 

### H O N O R

A B L E 

### S T E P H E N 

### W I L L I A M S 

### , P R E S I D I N G



### __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ A P P E L L E E 

### ’ S 

### B R I E F



### __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ T O T H E H O N O R A B LE J U S T IC E S O F T H E T H IR T E E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A LS : App el le e Fl es sn er Ent erp ris es , In c. fil es it s br ie f, res pe ct fu ll y req ue st in g th at
th is Co ur t affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e tri al co ur t en te red Decem be r 3, 20 14 , in al l

res pe ct s.

iiT A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Tab le of Au th or it ie s.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Is su es Pres en te d.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

St at em en t o f Fac ts

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Su m m ary of th e Arg um en t.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Arg um en t.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1. Th e Evid en ce Fai ls to Sh ow th at th e Co ns tr uc ti on Co nt ra ct was Co mpl et ed

Mor e th an Fou r Y

ea rs Befo re Su it

wa s Fi le d.

. . . . 7

2. Th e La w Doe s n ot

Requ ir e a Co nt ra ct

fo r S er vi ces to be In W ri ti ng . Even i

f i t Di d t he Par ti es ’ Co nt ra ct wa s Ful ly Perf

or med , Tak in g i t Ou ts id e th e S ta tu te of Fra ud s.
. . . 10

3. Th e Evid en ce Su

pp or ts th e Tr ia l Co ur t’s Awa rd of Att or ne y Fees fo r Br ea ch of

Co nt ra ct

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4. Th e Tr ia l Co ur t wa s N ot Requ ir ed to Fil e Ali ’s Requ es te d Add it io na l Fin di n g

s Be c au se Th ey W

er e no t Su

pp or te d by th e Evid en ce an d W

er e Co nt ra ry to it

s Prev io us Fin d in gs an d Co nc lu si on s. Mo re ov er

, No Ha rm Res ul te d f

ro m Su ch Fai lu r

1 e 4

..
Prayer.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Cert ifi cat e o f Serv ic e.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Cert ifi cat e o f Co m

pl ia nc e.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

iiiT A B L E O F A U T H O R I T I E S

Ca se s: Pag e:

Alex an de r & Pol le

y Co ns tu ct io n C

o. v. S pa in , 47 7 S .W .2d 30 1 (Te x. Ci v. Ap p. – Ty le r 19 72 , no writ ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,9

Buc keye Ret. Co . L.L.C. v. Ban k o f AM, N.A. , 23 9 S .W .3d 39 4 (Te x. Ap p. – Dall as 20 07 , no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Ch er ne Ind us ti re s, In c. v. Mag al la ne s , 76 3 S .W .2d 76 8 (Te x. 1 98 9)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Ci ty of Lo s Fr es no s v. Go nz al es , 83 0 S .W .2d 62 7 (Te x. Ap p. – Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 92 , no writ ).

. . . . . . . . . 15

Ci ty of Mc All en v. Rami re z , 20 13 Tex

. App

. LEXIS 88 87 , *7 6 (Tex. App – Corp us Ch ris ti ) , v a c a t e d on ot he r gr ou nd s , 30 13 Tex

. App

. LEXIS 13 78 5, *1 (Tex

. App . – Co rp us Ch ris ti 20 13 , no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Dyn er gy , Inc . v. Y

at es , 42 2 S .W .3d 63 8 (Te x. 2 01 3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Geo te ch Ener

gy Co rp . v. Gul

f S ta te , 78 8 S .W .2d 38 6 (Te x. Ap p. – Hou st on [14 Dis t.]19 90 , no writ ).

. . . . . . . 11 th

God de v. W oo d , 50 9 S .W .2d 43 5 (Te x. Ci v. Ap p. – Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 74 , writ ref’d n .r.e).

. 8

G-W -L, In c. v. Rob ic ha ux , 64 3 S.W .2d 39 2 (Tex

. 19 82 ), ov er ru le d on ot he r gr ou nd s , Mel od y Home Mfg

. Co .v . Bar ne s , 74 1 S .W .2d 34 9, 3 55 (Tex . 19 87 ).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Hof fma n v . W

al l, 60 2 S .W .2d 32 4 (Te x. Ci v. Ap p. – Texa rk an a 1 98 0, wri t re f’d n.r .e.).

. . . . 7

ivIn te rme di cs , Inc . v. Gra dy ,

68 3 S .W .2d 84 2 (Te x. Ap p. – Hou st on [1s t Di st .] 19 84 , pet . den ie d)

. . . . 7,8

Met al St ru ct ur es Co rp v. Pla in s Te xt il es , Inc ., 47 0 S .W .2d 93 (Tex . Civ . App – Am ari ll o 1 97 1, wri t re f’d n.r .e.) .

. . . . . . . 7

Mon tg ome ry W

ar d & Co ., Inc . v. Dal to n, 66 5 S .W .2d 50 7 (Te x. Ap p – El Pas o 1 98 3, n o wri t).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Ni co l v. Go nz al es , 12 7 S .W .3d 39 0 (Te x. Ap p. – Dall as 20 04 , no pe t.).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

W es te rg re n v . Nat . Pro

pe rt y Hol di ng

, L.P., 40 9 S .W .3d 11 0 (Te x. Ap p. – Hou st on [14 Dis t.] 20 13 , no pe t. h .).

. . . . 12 th

St at ut es an d Ru le s :
T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 44 .1.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

T E X

. R. C IV

. P. 94

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

T E X

. B U S

. & C O M

. C O D E A N N . §2 .20 1( a).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

T E X

. C IV

. P R A C

. & R E M

. C O D E A N N . §3 8.0 01

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

vI S S U E S P R E S E N T E D

1. T h e Evid en ce Fai ls to Sh ow th at th e Co ns tr uc ti o n Co nt ra ct w a s Co mpl et ed Mor e th an Fou r Y ea rs Befo re Su it wa s Fi le d.

2. T h e La w Doe s no t Req ui re a Co nt ra ct fo r Se rv ic es t o b e In W ri ti ng

. Even if it Did

, th e Par ti es ’ Co nt ra ct wa s Ful ly Perf or med , Tak in g i t Ou t o

f t he St at ut e o

f Fr au ds

. 3. Th e Evid en ce Su

pp or ts th e Tr ia l Co ur t’ s Awa rd of Att or ne y Fees fo r Br ea ch of

Co nt ra ct

. 4. Th e Tr ia l Co ur t wa s No t Req ui re d to Fil e Ali ’s Req ue st ed Add it io na l Fin di ng

s Beca us e th ey W

er e no t Su pp or te d by th e Evid en ce an d W

er e Co nt ra ry to it

s Prev io us Fin di ng

s an d Co nc lu si on s. Mor eo ver , No Har m Resu lt ed

fr om Such Fai lu re

.

viS T A T E M E N T O F F A C T S

App el le e ob

jects to th e fact st at em en t se t fo rth by App el la nt s in th ei r br ie f. It
is in co m pl et e an d fail s to pr es en t th e ev id en ce in li gh t of the tri al co ur t’s jud gm en t,

as req ui red un de r th e pr op er st an da rd of rev ie w. A pr op er rev ie w of th e ev id en ce is

as fol lo ws:

....... . Ro dn ey Fl es sn er is th e Pres id en t an d own er of Fl es sn er Ent erp ris es , In c. (RR 6) So m et im e aft er Aug us t of 200 9, Fles sn er was hi red by Nad ir an d Mu m ta z Ali to

te ar ou t th e ex is ti ng el ect ric al in th ei r Fas t Trak Exp res s co nv en ie nc e st or e in Cu ero , whi ch th ey ha d jus t pu rch as ed , an d to do a co m pl et e el ect ric al “ red o.” ( RR 6; 12 ; 49 )

Fl es sn er tol d th e Ali s th at th e la bo r al on e wou ld co st $3 ,00 0 a week , bu t th ey ne ve r
di sc us se d a to ta l pr ic e or es ti m at e. (RR 17 -1 8; 38 ; 43 ) The wor k in vo lv ed ch eck in g 1

to see wha t ex is ti ng el ect ric al was a ct iv e an d t ear o ut what was n ot . ( RR 19 -2 9; PX

2 [ ph ot os ta ken at th e be

gi nn in g of th e

jo b do cu men ti ng wh at Fles sn er ha d to te ar ou t

an d re pl ac e or re

pa ir ] ). Fl es sn er te st ifi ed it wou ld be im po ss ib le to gi ve a pr ic e on

a job li ke th is wit ho ut a ph y si cal se t of pl an s or bl ue pr in ts to kn ow wha t he was

ex pe ct ed to co m

pl et e an d ho ok up

. (RR 72 ) Ali m ad e se ve ral ch an ge s in th e wor k

Flessne r and A li had had disputes 10 to 15 y ear s ear lier over Ali’s failure to pay 1 Flessne r’s bills for similar work. ( RR 34) Those disputes had be en settled a nd wer e not involved in this j ob . (

RR 6-7)
1to be do ne as t he job pro gr es se d. (RR 72 -7 4)

Onc e ev erythi ng was sa fe and of f, Fl es sn er rem ov ed al l of th e lo os e co nd ui ts
th at were no t ne ed ed an d al so wall an d su sp en de d c e i l i n g , a nd ot he r pi eces of

eq ui pm en t th at were th ere. The y wire d th e g a s pu m ps , th e ou ts id e li gh ts , an d th e

e nt ire st ru ct ur e “ 10 0 pe rcen t,” m in us th e or ig in al ex te rio r se rv ic e an d th e e n d

co nc ret e co nd ui ts

. The y ha d to ha ve so m eo ne co m e in an d te ar up so me c o n cret e
whe re th e co nd ui ts were ba d. It to ok m or e ti me a n d e x p en se th an st art in g a br an d

ne w job fro m

scr at ch , and th ere wer e n o b lu ep rin ts or p la ns of t he job

. (RR 12 -1 4)

Fl es sn er wou ld m eet wit h Ali week ly whe n he cam e by th e job an d Ali wou ld

te ll hi m wha t wan te d do ne fo r th e ne xt week

. (RR 14 ) Fl es s n e r d i d ev erythi ng he

as ke d h im

to do

. At on e po in t, Fl es sn er was ou t so m uc h m on ey in eq ui p men t a n d la bo r co st s

t h a t he ha d to ta ke on ot he r job s, an d was fin al ly fo rced st op th e job

. ( RR 38 )

Fl es sn er kn ew Ali was st ret ch ed fin an ci al ly wait in g to ge t th e st or e op en an d m on ey

co m in g in , bu t Fl es sn er ha d ha d to ta ke ou t a lo an h i ms e l f fo r $1 00 ,00 0 to ke ep
afl oa t. (RR 13 -1 5)

Ali cal le d an d as ke d to ta lk to Fl es sn er, and th ey ag reed to m eet at Fl es sn er’s
ho us e. (RR 16

) Ali to ld hi m he ne ed ed Fl es sn er to wor k wit h hi m , to pl eas e gi ve hi m
th e be ne fit of th e do ub t, and as a Ch ris ti an m an he was go in g to ke ep hi s word

. Ali

2pr om is ed Fl es sn er on hi s fam il y ’s na m e th at he wan te d to ge t t hi s job com pl et e an d

st art m ak in g in co m e so he co ul d g et Fle ss ne r pa id . He pro m is ed to pa y Fle ss ne r in
fu ll . Fles sn er t ol d Al i t ha t at th at ti m e h e was $1 20 ,00 0 i nt o t he job . ( RR 40 ; 44 )

Fl es sn er th en ag reed to fin is h th e job an d d id so

. The in vo ic e th at Fl es sn er

pr ep ared on Mar ch 30 , 20 09 was fo r $1 45 ,54 3.3 7, whi ch al lo wed fo r $2 0,0 00 th at Ali
ha d al read y pa id

. (PX 1[

in vo ic e] ; RR 8- 9; 57

) Thi s in cl ud ed al l of th e m at eri al s an d
la bo r to co m

pl et e th e job , $5 0 , 0 4 5

. 6 4 fo r m at eri al s, $9 5,9 20 .25 fo r la bo r, an d
$1 2,0 42 .19 in sa le s ta x, al l of whi ch was lo gg ed on a da il y ba si s by th e ho ur s wor ke d, by whom , and what m at eri al s wer e u se d. (RR 8; 1 8; 43 )

Fl es sn er dr op pe d of

f a co py of th e in vo ic e at th e Fas t Trak st or e an d al so fax ed

a co py of th e in vo ic e to Ali ’s ot he r st or e in Cu ero

. (RR 31 ) A co py was al so fax ed to

a la wy er in to wn, Ray R e e s e

. (RR 46 ) Fl es sn er di d no t fil e an y li en s or se nd an y
de m an d let te rs

. ( RR 46

) Ali to ld hi m

on fou r or fiv e d iff

eren t o ccas io ns th at he was tryin g t o g et so m e m on ey co m in g i n s o h e co ul d s ta rt p ay in g h im

. (RR 32 ; 45 )

F l e ss ne r ke pt a syste m at ic reco rd of th e sa le s an d se rv ic e th at he di d i n
in st al l i ng th e el ect ric al , whi ch was al l do ne an d de li ve red in th e reg ul ar co ur se of
bu si ne ss

. (RR 8- 9; 17 ; PX 1) The Mar ch 30 in vo ic e w as ta ke n fro m da il y lo gs th

Fl e s s n e r ke pt on th e job fo r ho ur s wor ke d. (RR 37 ) The wor k was do ne at th e
in si st en ce o f Ali , who pro m is ed an d b ecame liab le to pa y for it an d d id no t.

3Fl es sn er di d no t fin is h th e job un ti l Ju ne of 20 09

. He co nt in ue d to wor k at th e

lo cat io n aft er Mar ch 16 , 20 09 , th e da te of th e la st b i ll in g, ch an gi ng ou t pa rts an d

“ st uf f” an d rear ran gi ng pa ne l am pe rag e lo ad s to ba la nc e so m e lo ad s. He was th ere

up th ro ug h th e 27 or 28 , an d co m pl et ed th e m at eri al s, on th e 29

. H e th en th th t h

co nt in ue d to do warra nt y wor k an d pu nc h li st th in gs un ti l Ju ne of ‘09

. Eve ry th in g he
di d a fte r Mar ch 16 was at no ad di ti on al ch arg e. (RR 1 1) The Ali s so ld th e st or e in th Sep te m be r of 20 09 for $8 00 ,00 0. (RR 48 ; 7 0) Sui t was fil ed on Marc h 2 8, 2 01 3.
Ali ’s te s ti m on y di ffer ed in so m e area s fro m Fl es sn er’s. He te st ifi ed th at
Fl es sn er to ld hi m th e who le job wou ld co st no m or e th an $4 0 to $4 5,0 00 an d th at he

wou ld be reas on ab le wit h hi m “ th is ti m e.” (RR 51 ; 76 ) He c l a im ed ne ve r to ha ve

se en th e fin a l in vo ic e un ti l su it was fil ed in 20 13

. (RR 52 -5 4) He sa id he m et
Fl e s s n e r on th e st reet in 20 12 , th at th ey di sc us se d th e am ou nt of th e bi ll , an d th at
Fl es sn er su gg es te d wor ki ng it ou t wit ho ut at to rn ey s an d wit h Ali m ak in g pa y m en ts

. (RR 55 )

Ali te st ifi ed whe n he cam e to to wn he ne ve r sa w Fl es sn er’s crew wor ki ng earl y
i n th e m or ni ng s or on Sat ur da y or Su nd ay , a s refl ect ed in th e in vo ic e

. ( RR 5 7 ; 6 1 )

He al so te st ifi ed th at fo ur or fiv e m on th s aft er th e st or e op en ed in Aug us t of 20 08 , he

wen t to tal k t o F le ss ne r ab ou t wh at he st il l o wed hi m . (RR 58 -5 9) Fl es sn er sai d he
ha dn ’t fin is he d t he pa pe rwo rk an d wo ul d g et hi m

a bi ll . Ali d en ie d e ve r be in g t ol d

4la bo r wou ld be at le as t $3 ,00 0 a week

. (RR 59 ) He al so d e n i e d e v er pl ead in g wit h

Fl es sn er t o fi ni sh th e job

. (RR 60 )

Ali ad m it te d th at th e wor k he wan te d was do ne , bu t m ai nt ai ne d th at he di dn ’t

owe th e m on ey

. (RR 66

) He te st ifi ed th at aft er th e st or e op en ed in Aug us t of ‘09 he
cal le d a nd ask ed Fle ss ne r to do so m e wor k wh en a br eak er “ fli pp ed .” (RR 68 )

5S U M M A R Y O F T H E A R G U M E N T

Thi s is a si m

pl e br each of co nt ract cas e ari si ng fro m an el ect ric al co ns tru ct io n

co nt ract th at was tri ed to th e co ur t. App el le e Fl es sn er pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

to su pp or t th e tri al co ur t’s jud gm en t award in g hi m da m ag es as a res ul t of App el la nt ’s
br each of th at co n t r a c t f

o r f ai lu re to pa y th e am ou nt du e. App el la nt s, on th e ot he r
ha nd , pr es en te d in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of t h e i r affi rm at iv e de fen se s of th e st at ue of

li m it at io ns an d s ta tu te of f rau ds

. Mo reo ve r, th e tri al co ur t’s award of at to rn ey fees is su pp or te d bo th by th e la w

an d th e ev id en ce. And fin al ly, App e l l a n t s were no t en ti tl ed to th ei r req ue st ed
ad di ti on al fin di ng s an d co nc lu si on s be cau se th ey were no t su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce

an d were co nt rary to th e co ur t’s pr ev io us fin di ng s. App el la nt s ha ve sh own no ha rm
in th e tr ia l co ur t’s fa il ur e to en te r th em

. The jud gm en t s ho ul d b e aff irmed in all res pe ct s.

6A R G U M E N T

1. Th e Evid en ce Fai ls to S h o w th at th e Co ns tr uc ti on Co nt ra ct wa s Co mpl et ed

Mor e th an Fou r Y

ea rs Befo re Su it

wa s Fi le d.

Lim it at io ns of act io ns i s an affi rm at iv e de fen se th at m us t be sp eci fic al ly pl ead ed an d pr ov ed

. In te rme di cs , In c. v. Gra dy , 68 3 S.W .2d 8 42 (Tex

. App

. –
Hou st on [1 st Dis t.] 19 84 , pe t. de ni ed ) A pa rty as se rti ng li m it at io ns mu s t n o t on ly

es ta bl is h th e ap pl ic ab il it y of th e li m it at io n st at ut e, bu t m us t, as well , pr ov e whe n th e

op po ne nt s cau se of act io n accr ue d i n o rd er to de m on st rat e th e ba r of li m it at io ns

. Hof fma n v. W

al l, 60 2 S.W .2d 32 4, 32 6 (Tex

. Ci v. App

. – Tex ark an a 19 80 , writ ref’d

n.r.e .) W he re reas on ab le m in ds m ay di ffer as to th e in fere nc es to be dr awn fro m th e

ev id en ce, it is in cu m

be nt up on th e pa rty as se r t i n g l im it at io ns to se cu re fin di ng s

su st ai ni ng th e pl ea of li m it at io ns

. Met al St ru ct ur es Co rp v. Pla in s Text il es , In c ., 47 0

S.W .2d 93 , 99 (Tex . Civ . App – Am ari ll o 1 97 1, wri t re f’d n.r .e.)
Ack no wled gi ng th ey ha d th e bu rd en of pr oo f on th ei r affi rm at iv e de fen se of
th e st at ue of li m it at io ns , Ap pe ll an ts arg ue th a t th ey m et th at bu rd en by s ho win g by

a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at su it was no t br ou gh t wit hi n th e fo ur -y ear st at ut e.
Fl es sn er wil l sh ow th at th is is no t tru e an d th at , in st ead , th e ev id en ce do es no t pr ov e
th at it s cau se of act io n acc r u e d b e f o re Mar ch 28 , 20 09 , fo ur y ears be fo re su it was
fil ed

.

7App el la nt s al so ad m it th at th is was an ag reem en t fo r a co nt in ui ng co nt ract fo r

pe rfo rm an ce

. (Apt Br @1 5) A s su ch , a cl ai m fo r pa y m en t or so m e ot he r fo rm of

co nt ract ua l pe rfo rm an ce is ba se d on th e en ti re co nt in uo us co nt ract , an d th e li m it at io n

pe rio d on th e c l a i m fo r pa y m en t do es no t co m

m en ce un ti l th e co nt ract is fu ll y

pe rfo rm ed

. Se e In te rme di cs I nc

. v. Gra dy , 68 3 S.W .2d 84 2, 84 5- 46 (Tex

. App

. –
Hou st on [1 Dis t.] 19 84 , writ ref’d n.r.e .); Alex an de r & Pol le y Co ns t u c t i o n Co

. v. s t Sp ai n, 47 7 S.W .2d 30 1, 30 3 (Tex. Ci v. App

. – Ty le r 19 72 , no writ ). Fo r in st an ce, if

a pa rty is hi red to co ns tru ct im pr ov em en ts to a ho us e, wit h pro gr es s pa y m en ts to be

m ad e bu t no da te s or am ou nt s of th e pa y m en ts are se t ou t , a c o n ti nu in g co nt ract is

crea te d su ch th at th e li m it at io n pe rio d on a cl ai m fo r pa ym e n t d o e s n ot co m m en ce

un ti l th e co nt ract ha s be en co nc lu d e d

. God de v. W oo d , 50 9 S.W .2d 43 5, 43 7- 44 1 (Tex

. Ci v. App

. – Co rp us Ch ris ti 19 74 , writ ref’d n.r.e )(wh en cl ai m fo r wor k, la bo r,

o r m at eri al pe rfo rm ed or fu rn is he d is ou tg ro wth of en ti re co nt act fo r co nt in uo us

wor k, la bo r, or m at eri al , cl ai m is tre at ed as en ti re de m an d an d li m it at io n pe rio d do es

no t co m m en ce u nt il co nt ract ha s b een fin is he d.)
Here, t he ev id en ce s ho ws t ha t t he job was no t com pl et ed un ti l as late as Ju ne
of 20 09 , well wit h th e fo ur y ear st at ut e, th e la wsu it ha vi ng be in g fil ed on Mar ch 28 , 20 13

. Fl es sn er te st ifi ed th at aft er th e la st da te of wor k as sh owe d on th e bi ll , Mar ch

16 , 20 09 , he was , fo r ov er two m on th s “ st il l th ere at th e lo cat io n ch an gi ng ou t part s

8an d st uf

f a n d rear ran gi ng pa ne l em pe rag e lo ad to ...bal an ce so m e lo ad an d I was

act ua ll y th ere up th ro ug h th e 27 or 28 an d th en co m pl et ed th e m at e r i a l, do ub le th th

ch eck in g th e m at eri al li st on th e 29 th an d co m pl et ed th e in vo ic e on th e 30 .” ( RR 11 ) th

He co nt in ue d w o r k i n g, do in g warra nt y wor k an d pu nc h li st th in gs , fin is hi ng up in

Ju ne of ‘09 , eve n t ho ug h h e d id no t b il l fo r an y work aft er t he 16

. (RR 11 ) th

The on ly ev id en ce offe red by App el la nt s to di sp ut e Fl es sn er’s test im on y th at
he di dn ’t fin is h th e job un ti l Ju ne of 20 09 , was th e in vo ic e it se lf whi ch sh owe d th at
la st da t e w o r k w a s b il le d fo r was Mar ch 16 , 20 09

. At m os t, th e ev id en ce is

co nf li ct in g. Fl es sn er te st ifi ed th at th is was th e da te jus t b efo re he co m pl et ed th e
in vo ic e, bu t th at he co nt in ue d to fin is h th e wor k fo r an ot h er al m os t two m on th s.
W he n vi ewed in li gh t of al l of th e ev id en ce an d in fav or of th e tri al co ur t’s jud gm en t,
th e ev id en ce su pp or ts th e tri al co ur t ’s im pl ie d fin di ng th at th e job was no t fin is he d

un ti l aft er Mar ch 28 , 20 09

. The cred ib il it y of th e wit ne ss es an d th e weig ht to be gi ve n
th ei r te st im on y is fo r th e tri er of th e fact

. Se e Alex an de r an d Pol le y Co ns tr uc ti on Co ., In c. v. Sp ai n, 47 7 S.W .2d 30 1 (Tex

. App .-- Ty le r1 97 2, no writ ) (s ta tu te di d no t accr ue
be cau se ev id en ce sh owe d th at al l of th e di rt on th e job was no t rem ov ed un ti l la te r).

2

Although A

ppellants’ B rief r epeatedly ref ers to “substantial” completion as the test for 2 completion in limi tation case s, the cites they rely on are unrela ted to the statute of limitations and there fore irrele vant her e. The limit ations case s ref er to the c ontrac t being “finished,” “conc luded” (

Godde ), “f

inal completion” (

Alexande r and Polley ) and “ fully perf ormed”
9The ev id en ce on th is is su e is no t well de ve lo pe d. Alt ho ug h it was App el la nt s’

bu rd en to pr ov e th e job was fin is he d be fo re Mar ch 28 , th ey of fere d no ot he r th

ev id en ce on th is is su e. The tri al co u r t a s t he fact fin de r was free to weig h th e

ev id en ce an d be li ev e Fl es sn er’s t es ti m on y th at he di d n ot fin is h u nt il Ju ne of 2 00 9.

Se e Alex an de r an d Pol le

y. The tri al co ur t’s jud gm en t sh ou ld no t be rev ers ed on th is

gr ou nd

. 2. Th e La w Doe s n ot Requ ir e a Co nt ra ct

fo r S er vi ces to be In W ri ti ng . Even i

f i t Di d t he Par ti es ’ Co nt ra ct wa s Ful ly Perf

or med , Tak in g i t Ou t o

f t he St at ut e o

f Fr au ds

.
App el la nt s ne xt arg ue th at th e pa rti es ’ ag reem en t was req ui red to be in writ in g

an d is th eref

or e ba rred by th e st at ut e of frau ds

. Not on ly is th is no t tru e, th e co nt ract

was un di sp ut ab ly pe rfo rm ed an d th eref or e wou ld no t co m e wit hi n th e st at ut e in an y

ev en t.
The s t a t u t e o f frau ds is an affi rm at iv e de fen se th at m us t be pl ead ed
affi rm at iv el y by th e pa rty th at rel ie s on it to av oi d co nt ract ua l li ab il it y
. Se e T E X

. R.

C IV

. P. 94 ; Ni co l v. Gon za le s , 1 2 7 S

. W. 3 d 3 90 , 39 3 (Tex

. App

. – Dall as 20 04 , no

pe t.) The pa rty th at pl ea d s t h e st at ut e ha s th e in it ia l bu rd en of es ta bl is hi ng it s

( Interme dics)
, with only

one ca se re fer

ring to “substantial” completion ( Godde ) . Godde also ref ers to “f inished” and “ conclude d”. The ref ore substantial c ompletion is not the ac cepte d standard f or completion of a

contra ct in limit ation case s. Even if it wer e, the e vidence shows that the job was not substantially complete a s of Marc h 28, 2009.

10ap pl ic ab il it y
. Se e Dyn er gy , Inc . v. Y

at es , 42 2 S .W .3d 63 8, 6 41 -2 T(Tex. 2 01 3.)

As aut ho rit y

for th ei r po si ti on th at th e co nt ract was re qu ire d t o b e in writ in g, App el la nt s rel y on T E X

. B U S

. & C O M

. C O D E A N N

. §2 .20 1( a). Thi s st at ut e, ho wev er,

ap pl ie s o nl y

to th e sa le of g oo ds :
Exc ep t as ot he rwis e pr ov i d e d i n th is se ct io n a co nt ract fo r th e sa le of go od s fo r th e pr ic e of $5 00 .00 or m or e is no t en fo rcea bl e by way of act io n or de fen se un le ss th ere is so m e writ in g su ffi ci en t to in di cat e th at a co nt ract fo r sa le ha s be en m ad e be twee n th e pa rti es an d si gn ed by th e pa rty ag ai ns t who m en fo rcem en t i s s ou gh t o r by his au th or iz ed ag en t o r br ok er...
The co nt ract at ha nd was es se nt ia ll y fo r se rv ic es , no t go od s, so th is st at ut e do es

no t ap pl y . Al th ou gh t h e e l e ct ric al se rv ic es co nt ract ne ces sa ril y en ta il ed App el la nt s
bu y in g so m e el ect ric al eq ui pm en t, th e la w is th at whe n a co nt ract is m ix ed go od s an d

se rv ic es , a s h e r e, bu t pr im ari ly a se rv ic es co nt ract , th is st at ut e do es no t ap pl y
. Se e
Geo te ch Ene rg

y Co rp

. v. Gul

f St at e , 78 8 S.W .2d 38 6, 38 9 (Tex

. App

. – Hou st on [1 4 Dis t.]19 90 , no writ )(es se nc e of co nt ract fo r in st al la ti on of te le ph on e eq ui pm en t th

was ren de rin g of se rv ic es , no t m erch an t se ll in g go od s) ; Mon tg ome ry W ar d & Co ., In c. v. Dal to n, 66 5 S.W .2d 50 7, 51 1 (T e x
. A p p

– El Pas o 19 83 , no writ )(b ecau se

es se nc e of tra ns act io n was to pr ov id e m at eri al s an d in st al l ro of was no t to se ll ro of in g

m at eri al s, bu t to fu rn is h la bo r to in st al l ro of , Arti cl e 2 was in ap pl ic ab le ); G-W -L, In c.

v. Rob ic ha ux , 64 3 S.W .2d 39 2, 39 4 (Tex

. 19 82 ), ov er ru le d on ot he r gr ou nd s , Mel od y
Home Mfg

. Co .v

. Bar ne s , 74 1 S.W .2d 34 9, 35 5 (Tex

. 19 87 )(“ do m in at in g fact or ” was

11fu rn is hi ng of l ab or an d p erfo rm an ce o f wor k re qu ire d fo r co ns tru ct in g h ou se .)

The es se nc e, or do m in at in g fact or , of th e co nt ract he re was to pr ov id e th e la bo r

to te ar ou t an d in st al l th e el ect ric al syste m at App el la nt ’s co nv en ie nc e st or e. Arti cl e
2 on th e sa le o f g o o d s d o e s no t ap pl y an d th e co nt ract was no t req ui red to be in
writ in g.
Eve n if th e st at ut e of frau ds di d ot he rwis e ap pl y he re, th e fact th at th e co nt ract

was fu ll y pe rfo rm ed wou ld ta ke i t ou ts id e th e st at ut e. A pa rty’ s co m pl et e

pe rfo rm an ce of th e pa rty’ s ob li ga ti on s un de r a co nt ract op erat es to ta ke th e co nt ract

ou ts id e th e ap pl ic at i o n o f th e st at ut e of frau ds

. Se e W es te rg re n v. Na t. Pro

pe rt y 3
Hol di ng , L.P., 40 9 S.W .3d 11 0, 13 5 (Tex

. App

. – Hou st on [1 4 Dis t.] 20 13 , no pe t. th h.) Ali ad m it te d th at Fl es sn er di d ev erythi ng he as ke d hi m to do an d on ap pe al arg ue
th at th e job was c om

pl et ed

. Alt ho ug h no t se t fo rth in a se pa rat e is su e, App el la nt s arg ue un de r th is is su e th at
th e pa rti es ’ or al co nt ract was no t s u f f i ci en tl y sp eci fic to en fo rce. App el la nt s’

te st im on y , ho wev er, was th at th ere was a co nt r a ct to co m pl et el y red o th e el ect ric al

in th e st or e an d th at th e job was co m pl et ed

. His on ly di sp ut e was wit h th e pr ic e. On

Appellants ar g ue that the tria l court made an implied finding that the par ties’ contra ct 3 was in writing , and then c halleng e the suff iciency of the e vidence to uphold that finding. This is not true. The tr ial court’s implied finding that supports its judgment is that the parties’ contra ct was primar ily

for se rvice s and there fore is not subject to the statute, and/or that the c ontrac t was perf ormed, taking it out of the statute.
12th is is su e, th ere was di sp ut ed ev id en ce. Ali te st ifi ed Fl es sn er to ld hi m th e co st wou ld

be no m or e th an $4 5,0 00 .00

. Fl es sn er, ho wev er, te st ifi ed th at he ne ve r ga ve Ali a

pr ic e be fo reh an d an d th at th e fin al pr ic e as refl ect ed in hi s syste m at ic reco rd s, was , aft er al l la wfu l of

fs et s, $1 45 ,54 3.3 7. The tri al co ur t ch os e to be li ev e Fl es sn er, as was
it s pr ov in ce. The tri al co ur t’s fin di ng of a co nt ract an d da m ag es is su ffi ci en tl y

su pp or te d b y

th e ev id en ce an d s ho ul d b e u ph el d.

3. Th e Evid en ce Su

pp or ts th e Tr ia l Co ur t’s Awa rd of Att or ne y Fees fo r Br ea ch of

Co nt ra ct

.
App el la nt s ad mit th at a pr ev ai li ng pa rty in a co nt ract act io n is en ti tl ed to

at to rn ey ’s fees un de r T E X

. C IV

. P R A C

. & R E M

. C O D E A N N

. §3 8.0 01

. The y arg ue th at
th e tri al co ur t’s award of $4 ,50 0.0 0 is no t su pp or te d by an y ev id en ce. App e l l a nt s

m ai nt ai n th at th ere is no te st im on y or ot he r ev id en ce in th e reco rd as to at to rn ey fees

. H o wev er, a rev ie w of th e reco rd sh ows th at Fl es sn er’s at to rn ey Ro b Lass m an d i d

te st ify to th e co ur t th at a reas on ab le an d ne ces sa ry at to rn ey ’s fee fo r th is type of cas e

an d th e am ou nt of wor k in vo lv ed was $4 ,50 0.0 0. ( RR 47 ) Ali ’s at to rn ey on ly as ke d

Lass m an on e qu es ti on ab ou t th e la ck of a de m an d le tt er an d m ad e no ob jecti on to th is

te st im on y
. (RR 47

)

Co nt rary, th en , to App el la nt ’s arg um en t, Fl es sn er was en ti tl ed to at to rn ey fee

13an d t he reco rd ful ly sup po rts th e tr ia l co ur t’s awar d o f $4 ,50 0.0 0.

4. Th e Tr ia l Co ur t wa s N ot Requ ir ed to Fil e Ali ’s Requ es te d Add it io na l Fin di ng

s Bec au se Th ey we re No t Su pp or te d b y th e Reco rd

an d C on fl ic te d w it h th e Co ur t’s Prev io us Fin di ng s a nd Co nc lu si on s. Mo re ov er

, No Har m Resu lt ed

fr om S uc h Fa il ur e.

The tri al co ur t was no t req ui red to fil e th e ad di ti on al fin di ng s an d co nc lu si on s

req ue st ed by A pp el la nt s. As ad m it te d b y App el la nt s, a tri al co ur t is n ot req ui red to

m ak e ad di ti on al fin di ng s of fact th at are un su pp or t e d i n th e reco rd , th at are

ev id en t i a r y, or th at are co nt rary to ot he r pr ev io us fin di ng s

. Se e Buc keye Ret. Co

. L.L.C. v. Ban k of

AM, N.A. , 23 9 S.W .3d 39 4, 40 2 (Tex

. App

. – Dall as 20 07 , no pe t.)
The y fu rth er ad m it th at th e bu rd en is on th e pa rty req ui rin g ad di ti on al fin di ng s of fact

an d co nc lu si on s of la w to sh ow ho w th e tr i a l c o u r t’s fai lu re to m ak e ad di ti on al findings an d co nc lu si on s pr ev en ts th at pa rty fro m ad eq ua te ly pr es en ti ng it s co m pl ai nt

on ap pe al

. Se e Ci ty of Mc All en v. Rami re z , 20 13 Tex

. App

. LEXIS 88 87 , *7 6 (Tex

. App – Co rp us Ch ris ti ), va ca te d on ot he r gr ou nd s , 30 13 Tex

. App

. LEXIS 13 78 5, *1 (Tex . App . – Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 13 , no pe t.) App el la nt s req ue st ed fin di ng s an d co nc lu si on s in fav or of th ei r affi rm at iv e
de fen se s of li m it at io ns an d st at ut e of frau ds

. As sh own ab ov e, th e ev id en ce di d no t

su pp or t su ch fin di ng s an d c on cl us io ns . They also wou ld be co nt rary to th e fin di ng s
of th e co ur t on li ab i l it y an d da m ag es in Fl es sn er’s fav or

. App el la nt s’ arg um en t

14si m

pl y be gs th e qu es ti on of th ei r ot he r is su es in th is ap pe al , whi ch are arg ue d ab ov e

an d to whi ch Fl es sn er di rect s th e co ur t. The fact th at App el la nt s wou ld ha ve pr ev ai le d

in th e cas e ha d th e fin di ng s be en e nt ered is irr el ev an t, as th ey were no t en ti tl ed to
th os e fi nd in gs

. Mo reo ve r, App el la nt s ha ve ad eq ua te ly pr es en te d th ei r ap pe al by arg ui ng th at
Fl es sn er’s reco ve ry sh ou ld be ba rred du e to th ei r affi rm at iv e de fen se s. The y ha ve
sh own no ha rm

. Fi na ll y , App el la nt s’ req ue st ed rel ie f is in ap pr op ria te

. At m os t, th ey wou ld be

en ti tl ed to an ab at em en t an d rem an d fo r en try of pr op er ad di ti on al fin di ng s on th ei r
affi rm at iv e de fen se s. The la w do es no t pr ov id e fo r ren di ti on of a di ffer en t jud gm en t
fo r a tri al co ur t’s fai lu re to fil e ad di ti on al , or e v e n o rig in al , fin di ng s. Se e T E X

. R.

A P P

. P 44 .1; Ch er ne In du st ir es , In c. v. Mag al la ne s , 76 3 S.W .2d 76 8, 77 3 (Tex

. 19 89 );

Ci ty of Lo s Fr es no s v. Go nz al es , 83 0 S .W .2d 62 7, 6 30 (Tex

. App . – Co rp us Ch ris ti

19 92 , no writ .)
The lo gi cal ex te ns io n of App el la nt s’ arg um en t is th at a pa rty can win a cas e
si m pl y by req ue st in g fin di ng s th at are no t su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce. Cl earl y th is is

no t t he law an d s ho ul d n ot be

.

15P R A Y E R

W HEREFORE, App el le e res pe ct fu lly pr ay s tha t this cas e be se t fo r su bm is si on

an d t ha t u po n c on si de rat io n, t he tri al co ur t’s jud gm en t b e aff irmed in all res pe ct s.

Respectf ully submitt ed,

/s/ Cy nthia T. Sheppard

___________________________ CYNTHI A T. SHEPPARD Attorney at L aw State Ba r No. 20245500 P.O. Box 67 Cuero, Te x as 77954 Tele. ( 361) 277-8539 Fa x (361) 277- 8571 ATTORNEY

S FOR APPELLEE

CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE
The undersig ned cer

tifies that a true and corr ect copy of Appellee ’s Br ief was forwa rded to all parties to the a

ppeal by elec tronic mea

ns on this the 30th day

of Jul y , 2015, as follows: /s/ Cy nthia T. Sheppard

________________________________ Cy nthia T. Sheppard
Ms Lesl ie W ern er P.O. Box 24 7 Vict or ia , Texa s 7 70 90 2 Att or ne y fo r Ap pe ll an ts

16CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE

I he reb y cert ify th at th e a p p l i c a b l e pa rts of th is Bri ef of App el le e co nt ai ns a to ta l of 4,3 47 wor ds , as ve rif

ie d by th e so ftwa re W or d Perf ect X5, in co m

pl ia nc e wit h Tex . R. App . P. 9.4 (i) (2 )(B)

. /s / Cynt hi a T. She pp ard

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Cy nt hi a T. She pp ard

17