COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00161-CV

AGAPE NORTHWEST HOUSING, 

INC. D/B/A DOVE VALLEY RANCH 

APARTMENTS; AOH-DOVETAIL 

VILLAS, LLC D/B/A DOVETAIL 

VILLAS APARTMENTS; AMERICAN 

OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUSINGRIVERMILL, LLC D/B/A VILLAGE 

SQUARE APARTMENTS D/B/A 

RIVERMILL APARTMENTS; 

AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY FOR 

HOUSING-SADDLEBROOK 

APARTMENTS, L.P. D/B/A RESERVE 

AT PECAN VALLEY APARTMENTS 

AND AMERICAN OPPORTUNITY 

FOR HOUSING, INC. D/B/A 

BRIARCREEK APARTMENTS

APPELLANTS

V.

MAINTENANCE SUPPLY 

HEADQUARTERS, LP

APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

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 Apartment Group 

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

an aggregate sum of $28,571.05. The 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 prejudgment 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, and $5,000 in the event of an appeal to the supreme court.

 

1See 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 violates the one satisfaction 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 we have reviewed the record 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 Appellants 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

 

2UAG did not appeal.

3After 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 judgment 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.