C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
AL LMETAL S FAB RI CATI NG, I NC., Ap pe lla nt,
v. RAMER CONCR ETE, I

NC., Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 02 33 -C V

Appea l from the 296th J udicial District Court of Col lin County , T e xas (TC# 296-00629-07)

O P I N I O N All Metals Fa

bricating, Inc. (“ All Metals”) br oug ht suit aga inst Foster Ge nera l Contracting , Inc. (“ Foster ”), Rame r Concre te, Inc. (“ Ramer” ), and A lpha Testing , Inc. (“ Alpha”) for br eac h of contra ct, bre ach of express warr anties, and br eac h of implied warr anties in the
c o n s tr u c t i o no f a b u i l d i n gf

o r A l l M e t a l s . T h e b u i l d i n g , a f u l l s e r v i c e m e t a l f

a b r i c at i o nf

a c i l i ty, was c onstructed by

Foster pursuant to a wr itten ag ree ment betwee n BEB DT–Realty , L td. (“B EBD T”) a

nd Foster entitled Standard F orm of Agree ment Be tween O wner and Construction Manag er ( the “or igina l contrac t”). F oster hire d Ramer to handle the dirt work, de livery and installation of low plasticity index s elec t fill, gra ding, a nd lime stabiliz ation. Since the building
was c ompleted, All Metals has ha d numerous proble ms with it . The foundation does not rest on sta ble so il a nd a s a re su lt h a s e xpe ri e nc e d mo ist ur e ind uc e d h e avin g/se ttl ing . T he bu ild inga s a re su lt h a d d oo rs that do no t op e rate pr op e rl y , c ra c ks in t he int e ri or

and e xter ior wa lls , c ra c ks in the fl oo ri ngand

sid e wa lks , a

nd oth e r d e fe c ts. Ramer f iled a no-e vidence motion for summary judgme nt, and later

a sec ond motion for-2-

summa ry jud g me nt. In th e se c on d mo tio n f or summa ry jud g me nt, Rame r a sse rt e d th at A ll Metals did not own the prope rty and did not enter

into any contra ct for the construction or development of

the improvements on the pr operty , and as suc h has no valid cla ims ag ainst any party in this case. Appe llant in Pl aintiff’s Supplemental Response in Opposition t o All Motions for Summary

J udg ment included evide nce that it was the assig nee of BEB DT Realty , L td.’s, the actua l owner of

the prope rty , claims and c auses of action ag ainst any

individuals, or entities involved in the building’s c onstruction. The trial c ourt g rante d Ramer’ s second motion for summary judgme nt and seve red the cause of ac tion. The standa

rd of r eview f

or traditional summary

judgme nt is well established. Nixon v. Mr. Property M

anageme nt Co., Inc. , 6 90 S.W. 2d 54 6, 54 8- 49 (T e x. 19 85 ). Th e mov ingpa rt y c arr ie s th e burd e n o f s ho wi ngthe re is n o g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t and it i s e nti tle d to judgme nt as a matter

of law. Browning v. Prostok , 165 S.W .3d 336, 344 (Tex. 2005). Evidence favor able to the non- movant will be taken a s true in dec iding whe ther ther e is a disputed issue of materia l fac t. Fo rt W

or th O ste op ath ic Ho sp ., In c . v . R e ese , 1 48 S.W. 3d 94 , 9 9 ( Te x. 20 04 ). Al l
rea sonable infe renc es, includingany doubts, must be resolved in favor of the non- movant. Id
. Th e qu e sti on

on a pp e a l is no t whe the r t

he summa

ry jud g me nt p ro of

ra ise s f a c t is su e s a s to require d elements of the movant’s claim, but whethe r the summary judgme nt proof esta

blishes there is no ge nuine issue of mate rial fa ct as a matter of la

w as to one or

more e lements of the movant’s claim. Gibbs v. Ge neral Motors Corp. , 450 S.W .2d 827, 828 (Tex. 1970). When the movant is the defe ndant and pr ovides summary judgme nt evidence disproving at least one essential ele ment of the plaintiff’ s cause of ac tion, summ ary judgme nt should be g rante d. Randall’s Food Marke ts, Inc. v. J ohnson , 891 S.W .2d 640, 644 (Tex. 1995). L ikewise,-3-

a de fe nd ant who c on c lus ive ly e sta bli sh e s e a c h e le me nt o f a n a ff ir mativ e de fe ns e is e nti tle d to summary judgme nt. Id . I f this burden is met by the def endant, then the plaintiff must raise a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t in avoidance of the a ffirma tive defe nse. Provenc io v. Paradigm Media, Inc
. , 44 S.W .3d 677, 680 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2001, no pet.) . Where the tria l court’s judgme nt does not specify the g round or grounds re lied upon for its ruling , the summary judgme nt must be affirme d on appea l if any of the theor ies adva

nced is meritorious. Carr v. Brasher , 776 S.W .2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1989). Her e, Ramer ’s g rounds for summar y judgme nt were that All Metals did not own the pr op e rt y , d id n ot e nte r i nto any

c ontr a c t f

or the c on str

uc tio n o r d e ve lop me nt o f t he imp ro ve me nts on the prope rty , and as suc h All Metals has no cla ims ag ainst any party . In response to the motion for summary

judgme nt, All Metals attache d an assignment of all cla ims arising f rom the
co n s tru ct i o no f t h e b u i l d i n g fr o mBE BD T

–R ea l ty L t d
. R am er , ci t i n g Esco Elev ators, Inc. v. Brown Rental Equipment Company, Inc
. , 670 S.W .2d 761, 764 (Tex.App.--F ort Worth 1984, writ ref ’d n.r.e .), ar gues that All Metals wa s require d to plead and pr ove that it was a n assig nee. Howeve r, despite not havingalleg ed a c ause of action, Appe llant is not barred f rom raisingthe issue for the f

irst time in their summary judgme nt response. Fran c o v . S lav on ic Mu tua l F

ireIn s. Ass’n , 154 S.W .3d 777, 785 n.7 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.), citing W omack v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 156 Tex. 467, 473, 296 S .W.2d 233, 237 (1956) and Pa tte rso n v . F irs t Na t. Bank of Lake J

ackson , 921 S.W .2d 240, 244 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ). The e vidence showingthat All Metals was a ssigne d the claims of the pr operty owner neg ated Ramer’ s summary

judgme nt contentions that All Metals had no cla ims ag ainst any party in the
c a se . Ra me r a rgue s th at e ve n if

Al l Me ta ls w a s a

n a ssi g ne e of

B EB DT , th e c la ims wo uld sti ll-4-

fail as a matter of la

w bec ause B EBD T was not a pa rty to the subcontrac t, and there fore , had no contra ct rig hts or brea ch of c ontrac t claims to assign a nyone. The first para g raph of the
su bc ontr a c t a g re e me nt b e tw e e n F os te r a nd Rame r s ta

te s: WHE REA S, Su

bc ontr a c tor

a g re e s to fu

rn ish a ll l a bo r, too ls, e qu ipm e nt, supervision, servic es, mater ials and supplies nec essar y to perfor m, and to perf

orm all work set f

orth in ‘Para g raph 2’ here of, in conne ction with the construction of AL LMETAL S FAB RI CATI NG, 200 AL L ENTOWN, AL L EN, TX ( owner), he re ina ft e r c a lle d th e Owne r, in a c c or da nc e wi th t he te rm s a

nd pr ov isi on s o f t

his Subcontrac t Ag ree ment, and of the Plans, Drawing s, Specifications, Genera l Conditi ons and Specia l Condit ions and other Doc uments formingor by ref ere nce ma de a pa rt of the Contr a c t be tw e e n th e Contr a c tor and the Owne r d ate d Augus t 4, 1999, all of which sha ll be considere d part of this Subcontrac t by this refe renc e there to and the Subcontra ctor a g ree s to be bound to the Contractor a nd the Owne r by the terms and pr ovisions thereof. Ramer a rgues this first para g raph is a c ontrac t rec ital and not an oper ative agree ment of the contra ct. All Metals ar gues that it is not a mere r ecital but rather ope rative la nguag e. I t is the duty

of the Court to consider

the entire writingand attempt to har moniz e and g ive
e ff e c t to a ll the pr ov isi on s o f t he c ontr a c t by

ana ly zingthe pr ov isi on s w ithre fe re nc e to t he wh ole agree ment. Frost Nat’l Bank v. L &F Distribs., L td. , 165 S.W .3d 310, 311-12 (Te x . 2005). A
re c ita l is a

fo rm a l st ate me nt o r s e tti ngfo rt h o f s ome matte r o f f

a c t, i n a ny de e d o r wri tin g , in order to expl ain the re asons upon which the tr ansac tion is founded. McM ahan v. Gre enwood , 10 8 S. W.3 d 4 67 , 4 84 (T e x.Ap p. -- Ho us ton [14t h D ist .] 20 03 , p e t. d e nie d) . Re c ita ls a re g e ne ra lly not part of a

contra ct unless the par

ties intended them to be, a nd will not control a contra ct’s operatives clauses unle ss those clauses a re a mbiguous. Ga rd

ne r v . S mi th , 168 S.W .2d 278, 280 (Tex.Civ.App.--Be aumont 1942, no writ). The rec itals may be looked to in deter

mining the proper construction of the contra ct and the pa rties intent. Id . The pa

ragraph a bove does not specify or explain the rea sons for the tra nsaction, rather it notifies the par ties that the contra ct-5-

betwee n the owner

and contr actor

is a part of

the agree ment. EM

C M or tga geCor p. v . D av is , 167 S.W .3d 406, 415 (Tex.App.--Austin 2005, pet. de nied). It also notifies the subcontra ctor that he is bound to the contrac tor and the owner by the terms and pr ovisions of the contrac t documents. Even if the f

irst para g raph is conside red a rec ital, it shoul d be re conciled w ith the operative clause s and g iven ef

fec t, so far a s possible. Mye rs v. Gulf Coast Minerals Management Corp. , 36 1 S. W.2 d 1 93 , 1 97 (T e x. 19 62 ). Th e su bc ontr a c t c le arl y

sh ow s Rame r a g re e d to be bo un d to both the contra ctor a

nd the owner

pursuant to the ter

ms of the orig inal contra ct. Ramer a lso asserted A ll Metals suffer ed no dama g es since it wa s not the owner of the proper ty . BEB DT is the owner , and assigned it’s claims to All Metals. The a ffidavit of William Thra ilk ill is s umm ary

jud g me nt p ro of

that e sta bli sh e s th e owne r s uf

fe re d d ama g e s, and

tho se claims wer e assigned to All Metals. As Ramer was c ontrac tually

obligated to the owner

and contra ctor, Ramer ’s motion for summary judgme nt on the brea ch of e x press a nd implied
war ranties wa s improperly

g rante d. We sustain Appellant’s sole issue. Ramer r aised a

cross-point that the a ssignment doc ument was improper ly admitted. Ramer r aised Rule 402 of the Texas Rules of Evidence objections stating Plaintiff did not plead
a ssi g nme nt, the re wa s n o e vid e nc e the a ssi g nme nt w a s ma de pr ior to Janu ary

20 07 wh e n s tatut e of limitations would have barr ed any claim, and that the or igina l contrac t prohibited assig nment of the c ontr a c t w ith out c on se nt o f b oth pa rt ie s. F ina lly , Ra

me r a rgue s A ll M e ta ls f

a ile d to produce the document in a pr oper r esponse to produc tion. The trial cour t overrule d all of Ramer’ s objections to the evidenc e. The de cision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewe d for a buse of discr etion. Ow e ns Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone , 9 72 S.W. 2d 35 , 4 3 ( Te x. 19 98 ). Rul e 40 2 s tate s th at a ll-6-

rele vant evidenc e is admissible, except as otherw ise provided by rule or la w, any irrele vant evidenc e is inadmissible. T EX .R.E V ID . 402. Relevant e vidence is defined a s evidenc e having any tendenc y to make the e x istence of

any fac t that is of conseque nce to the de termination of the action more probable or less proba ble than it would be without the evidenc e. Ramer moved f

or summary

judgme nt on the basis that All Metals was not the owne r of the pr op e rt

y no r a pa rt y to a ny c ontr a c t, a

nd ha d n o c la ims a g a ins t any pa rt y in t he su it. Al l Metals provided the assig nment of cla ims as evidence in response to the motion for summar y judgme nt. The assig nment document wa s releva nt to the determination of Rame r’s motion for summary judgme nt in that it was beingused to ref ute the grounds set for

th in the motion. The assig nment is dated as be ing ma de and e ntere d into on J une 10, 2004. The terms of the c ontrac t prohibits assignment of

the contra ct as a

whole. The re is nothingin the contra ct prohibiting the assig nment of par

t of the contra ct, or that the pr ohibition applies to claims and cause s of ac tion
ari sin gout of

a br e a c h o f t

he c ontr a c t. F ina lly , th e re is n o e vid e nc e in t he re c or d th at A ll M e ta ls fa ile d to ans we r a

ny dis c ov e ry

re qu e sts by

Rame r. Th e tr ia l c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in admitting the e vidence provided by All Metals in its suppl emental r esponse to Ramer ’s motions fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. Havingsustained Appellant’ s sole issue, we r ever se the orde r g rantingsummary jud g me nt a

nd re mand the c a se to t

he tr ia l c ourt .
Marc h 12, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.