Court Opinion

ID: 9659767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:54:20.400572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:11.438251
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellee Featherlite Corporation is correct in its assertion that the Court misstated the law when in the foregoing opinion it said, “While the owner is *477obligated under Section 53.101 of the Property Code to retain at least ten percent of the contract price, the owner does not become obligated in the sense of becoming indebted to a lienholder.” The Court meant to say, “While the owner is obligated under Section 53.101 of the Property Code to retain at least ten percent of the contract price, the owner does not become obligated in the sense of becoming indebted to a lienholder outside the existence of the latter’s lien.” In other words, the owner is personally liable to the lienholder for his ratable share of the ten percent retainage only if the lienholder gave proper notice, as required by Section 53.051, et seq., to the owner, a lien has been properly secured, and the claim has been reduced to judgment. Tex.Prop.Code Ann. sec. 53.084 (Vernon 1984). Once the lien is released, the owner is no longer personally liable to the former lienholder. As far as the owner, Brock Residence Inn, is concerned, it matters little whether the retainage was paid by the owner to McKee before or after the release of lien was delivered by Feath-erlite to McKee.
Featherlite maintains that there was a novation between the owner, McKee and Featherlite to the effect that Feather-lite promised the owner that it would discharge the lien indebtedness if McKee promised Featherlite to pay the retainage it received from the owner to Featherlite. The problem with Featherlite’s novation theory is that, under the stipulated facts, there is no evidence that Featherlite made any promise to the owner, and even if there had been such a promise, the claim would be against McKee for breach of contract and not against the retainage funds which lost their character as such once the lien was released.
Our original holding remains the same, that the judgment of the trial court is reversed and rendered as set forth in that opinion.