## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00161

- CV

AGAPE NORTHWEST HOUS ING, INC. D/B/A DOVE VALL EY RANCH APA R TMENTS; AOH

- DOVETAIL VILLAS, LLC D/B/A DO VETAIL VILLAS APARTMENTS; A MERICAN OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUS ING

RIVERMILL, LLC D/ B/A VILLAGE SQUARE AP AR TMENTS D/B/A RIVERMILL APARTMENTS ; AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUSING

- SADDLEBROOK APARTMENTS, L.P. D/B /A RESERVE AT PECAN VALLEY APAR TMENTS AND AMERICAN OPPORTU NITY FOR HOUSING, INC. D/ B/A BRIARCREEK APARTMENT S APPELLANTS

V.

MAINT ENANCE SUPPLY HEADQUARTERS, LP APPELLEE

------------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------2 ------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

------------
Appellee Maintenance Supply Headquarters, LP sued Appellants

—Agape

Northwest Housing, Inc. (Agape), AOH

- Dovetail Villas, LLC (AOH), American

Opportunity for Housing

– Rivermill, LLC (Rivermill), American Opportunity for

Housing

– Saddlebrook Apartments L

. P

. (Saddlebrook), and American

Opportunity for Housing, Inc. (American)

— and United Apartmen t Group

Management, Inc. (UAG), on theories of sworn account and quantum meruit for

an aggregate sum of $28,571.05

. T he trial court entered a final default judgment

for Maintenance Supply, awarding the following amounts:

From UAG, $28,571.05, plus $825.82 in prejudgment interest;

From Agape, $2,711.19, plus $78.74 in prejudgment interest;

From AOH, $8,161.60, plus $235.90 in prejudgment interest;

From Rivermill, $8,069.61, plus $268.62 in prejudgment interest;

From Saddlebrook, $7,384.12, plus $293.34 in p rejudgment interest; and

From American, $2,244.53, plus $78.40 in prejudgment interest.

From all of the defendants, jointly and severally

, reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,300, plus $5,000 in the event of an appeal to the court of appeals, an d $5,000 in the event of an appeal to the supreme court.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.3

None of the parties filed any post

- trial motions

. Appellants filed this

restricted appeal. 2

In their third issue, Appellants complain that , on its face, the default

judgment violate s the one satisfa ction rule

. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c), 30; Ins.

Co. of State of Penn. v. Lejeune , 297 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. 2009). In a motion

to this court, Maintenance Supply conceded that Appellants are entitled to relief

on this issue, and w e have reviewed the rec ord and agree that Appellants’ third

issue should be sustained. 3 See Parkway Co. v. Woodruff , 901 S.W.2d 434, 441

(Tex. 1995) (“Texas law does not permit double recovery.”). Therefore, we do

not reach Appellants’ remaining issues. See Tex. R. App. P. 47 .1.

Having sustained Appellants’ third issue, we reverse the trial court’s default

judgment in its entirety as to A ppellants and remand the case to the trial court.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.3.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, GARDNER , and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: June 14, 2012

2 UAG did not appeal.

3 After Appellants filed their brief, Maintenance Supply filed a motion in which it requested, among other things, that Appellants’ third issue be sustained and that we set aside the default ju dgment and remand the case for a new trial. In light of our disposition here, we grant Maintenance Supply’s motion in part, and we dismiss the rest of the motion as moot.