Court Opinion

ID: 9964195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 08:09:58.802166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:12.902647
License: Public Domain

In the
                Court of Appeals
        Second Appellate District of Texas
                 at Fort Worth
             ___________________________
                  No. 02-23-00268-CV
             ___________________________

GABRIEL GALINDO AND PATIOS BY DESIGN, LLC, Appellants

                             V.

   JEFF PETERSON AND MICHELLE PETERSON, Appellees

           On Appeal from the 481st District Court
                  Denton County, Texas
               Trial Court No. 23-1137-481

          Before Birdwell, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.
          Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellants Gabriel Galindo and Patios by Design, LLC (collectively Galindo)

appeal from the trial court’s order granting Appellees Jeff and Michelle Peterson’s

amended motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure. We affirm.

                                   Background

      Galindo, as the representative of Patios by Design, entered into a contract with

the Petersons in March 2021 to install a patio cover at the Petersons’ residence.

Galindo completed the work described in the contract, and the Petersons paid the

agreed price of $10,000. However, the Petersons were unhappy with the work done,

specifically with how the patio cover was tied into the roof. The Petersons asked

Galindo to fix the problem, and he did work to that end, but the parties dispute

whether he did that additional work properly. The Petersons hired a third party to

repair Galindo’s original and additional work. The Petersons sued Galindo in justice

court to recover the money they had to pay to the third party. That suit was abated

under the Residential Construction Liability Act because the Petersons did not give

proper notice of the claim.

      On February 9, 2023, Galindo filed this suit against the Petersons in district

court alleging causes of action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In his

claim for breach of contract, Galindo alleged that the Petersons “failed to perform

their obligations under the contract because they are [now] requesting payment for

                                          2
work already completed by [Galindo].” Galindo further alleged in his cause of action

for unjust enrichment that the Petersons committed fraud or duress and unduly took

advantage of him.

      On March 3, 2023, the Petersons filed special exceptions and an original

answer to the petition. They stated that Galindo’s petition failed to adequately provide

notice of the claims, failed to meet the minimum legal basis for a cause of action for

breach of contract, and failed to articulate a cause of action for unjust enrichment.

They demanded that Galindo dismiss the claims or amend his pleadings to correct

substantive defects. After Galindo did not amend his pleadings, the Petersons filed a

motion to dismiss Galindo’s allegedly baseless causes of action. See Tex. R. Civ. P.

91a. The Rule 91a motion to dismiss was set for a hearing on June 1, 2023.

      On May 24, 2023, Galindo filed a response to the Petersons’ motion to dismiss

stating that his pleadings satisfied the fair notice requirement. Galindo also filed an

amended petition on that same day. In the amended petition, Galindo stated that the

Petersons breached the contract by requiring Galindo “to perform other work [that]

was not contracted for[] and [that] was outside the scope of the original contract.”

Galindo further alleged that the Petersons had filed suit against him in justice court to

extort money from him and defraud him. In his cause of action for unjust enrichment,

Galindo alleged that the Petersons had been unjustly enriched as a result of Galindo’s

“taking losses and making no profit under this contract[] but yet still reaping the

benefits of [Galindo’s] labor, time, and services.” Galindo further added a cause of

                                           3
action for violation of the Prompt Pay Act set out in Chapter 28 of the Texas

Property Code. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§ 28.001–.010.

       The Petersons then amended their motion to dismiss and continued to allege

that each cause of action was baseless or without merit. After a hearing on July 7,

2023, the trial court granted the Petersons’ motion to dismiss and awarded the

Petersons attorney’s fees. This appeal followed. Galindo argues in three issues that his

petition had a basis in law and in fact and that the trial court erred by relying on

evidence and argument outside the pleadings.

                       Standard of Review and Applicable Law

       Dismissal of a suit is appropriate under Rule 91a “if the allegations, taken as

true, together with inferences reasonably drawn from them, do not entitle the

claimant to the relief sought . . . [or if] no reasonable person could believe the facts

pleaded.” City of Dallas v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. 2016) (citing Tex. R. Civ.

P. 91a). We review a Rule 91a motion’s merits de novo because the availability of a

remedy under the facts alleged is a question of law and because the rule’s factual-

plausibility standard is akin to a legal-sufficiency review. Id.

       If a claimant’s factual allegations in his pleadings, taken as true, and the

reasonable inferences to be drawn from those allegations do not entitle the claimant

to the relief sought, then the claim has no basis in law. Fiamma Statler, LP v. Challis,

No. 02-18-00374-CV, 2020 WL 6334470, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 29,

2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Rule 91a limits a court’s factual inquiry to the plaintiff’s

                                              4
pleadings, but it does not so limit the court’s legal inquiry. Bethel v. Quilling, Selander,

Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C., 595 S.W.3d 651, 656 (Tex. 2020).

                                         Analysis

       In his first two issues, Galindo argues that his pleadings on the causes of action

for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Prompt Pay Act each

had a basis in law and in fact.

Breach of Contract

       To prevail on a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff must establish (1) a valid

contract with the defendant, (2) that the plaintiff performed, (3) that the defendant

breached, and (4) that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of that breach. Lloyd

Walterscheid & Walterscheid Farms, LLC v. Walterscheid, 557 S.W.3d 245, 258 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2018, no pet.). Galindo alleged that he and the Petersons entered

into a contract for Galindo to install a patio cover at the Petersons’ residence in

exchange for payment of $10,000. Galindo also alleged that he performed the work

described in the contract and that the Petersons paid him for his services. He did not

claim that the Petersons breached the contract by refusing to pay the agreed upon

amount for the services provided, nor did he allege that the parties entered into a new

contract that the Petersons failed to perform.

       Galindo contends that the Petersons breached the contract when they required

him to “perform other work [that] was not contracted for[] and [that] was outside the

scope of the original contract.” Galindo states that a suit for breach of contract may

                                             5
include wrongfully requiring a party to perform work outside the scope of the

contract, citing as authority Vast Construction, LLC v. CTC Contractors, LLC, 526

S.W.3d 709, 724 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.), Hejin Hong v.

Nations Renovations, LLC, No. 05-15-01036-CV, 2016 WL 7473900, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Dec. 29, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.), and Tribble & Stephens Co. v. RGM

Constructors, L.P., 154 S.W.3d 639, 667 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet.

denied). However, none of those cases hold that a claim for breach of contract may

include wrongfully requiring a party to perform work outside the scope of the

contract after the party has already fully performed.

      Tribble was an appeal from a summary judgment in a construction-contract suit

to recover amounts still due under the contract after construction completion. Tribble,

154 S.W.3d at 646. The issue before the court was whether a subcontractor had

complied with a condition precedent to litigation, specifically whether the

subcontractor was first required to submit claims for work outside the scope of the

contract to the general contractor before suing to recover compensation for that extra

work. Id. at 666–67.

      In Vast Construction, a dispute between a general contractor and a subcontractor

required the general contractor to hire another subcontractor to complete the project,

and the general contractor sued the subcontractor for the difference. Vast Constr., 526

S.W.3d at 716–17. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the

jury’s finding that the subcontractor failed to comply with the contract. Id. at 721. The

                                           6
court then considered the general contractor’s damages, which included the difference

between the contract with the original subcontractor and the replacement

subcontractor. Id. at 723. The original subcontractor argued that the general

contractor could not recover charges in the replacement contract for additional work

not included in the original subcontractor’s contract. Id.

      In Hejin Hong, a contractor sued its customer for breach of contract, quantum

meruit, and other theories. Hejin Hong, 2016 WL 7473900, at *1. The jury found that

the customer breached the contract by failing to fully pay for the contracted work and

that the contractor had performed additional work outside the scope of the

contract—to which the parties had agreed—for which it was not paid. Id. The court

analyzed the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s findings and whether the

trial court properly submitted the theory of quantum meruit as a basis for recovery for

the extra work to the jury but did not discuss whether a request for services outside

the scope of the contract formed the basis for a breach of contract claim. Id. at *4, *9.

      The three cases cited by Galindo thus do not support his argument that a claim

for breach of contract may include wrongfully requiring a party to perform work

outside the scope of the contract.

      Galindo further argues that the Petersons failed to perform under the contract

because they had “request[ed] payment for work already completed by [Galindo].”

With this clear reference to the remedial damages sought by the Petersons in justice

court for Galindo’s failure to perform under the original contract, he attempts to

                                            7
allege they breached the contract, in effect, by seeking damages for his alleged breach

of contract. Not only does he fail to provide any authority that seeking remedial

damages for breach of contract in such a manner constitutes a breach of the same

contract, his pleadings do not allege any facts to show that the Petersons actually

breached the contract; as pleaded, the contract required them solely to pay $10,000 to

Galindo for his services, defective or otherwise, which they did.

      None of Galindo’s allegations, taken as true, show a valid basis in law or fact

for a claim for breach of contract. We conclude that Galindo’s claim for breach of

contract had no basis in law or fact and therefore failed to give fair notice to the

Petersons. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.

Unjust Enrichment

      In his amended petition, Galindo alleged a cause of action for unjust

enrichment stating that the Petersons had retained the benefit of Galindo’s additional

materials and labor without making full payment. This court has repeatedly held that

unjust enrichment is not an independent cause of action. Landers v. Landers, No. 02-

19-00303-CV, 2021 WL 1570011, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 22, 2021, no

pet.) (mem. op.); Davis v. OneWest Bank N.A., No. 02-14-00264-CV, 2015 WL

1623541, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 9, 2015, pet. denied) (mem. op.); see also

Lawry v. Pecan Plantation Owners Ass’n, No. 02-15-00079-CV, 2016 WL 4395777, at *6

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 18, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.); Hulen v. Hamilton, No. 2-

06-288-CV, 2008 WL 553812, at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 28, 2008, no pet.)

                                           8
(mem. op.); Friberg–Cooper Water Supply Corp. v. Elledge, 197 S.W.3d 826, 832 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2006), rev’d on other grounds, 240 S.W.3d 869 (Tex. 2007). Unjust

enrichment “characterizes the result of a failure to make restitution of benefits either

wrongfully or passively received under circumstances that give rise to an implied or

quasi-contractual obligation to repay.” Davis, 2015 WL 1623541, at *1 (quoting Argyle

Indep. Sch. Dist. ex rel. Bd. of Trs. v. Wolf, 234 S.W.3d 229, 246 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

2007, no pet.)).

       Galindo has framed the failure to pay him for his additional work as a breach

of the original contract, not as additional work done subject to a new contract or an

agreement that the Petersons then breached. In so framing the issue, Galindo

concedes that he was paid according to the terms of the original contract.

       We surmise that what Galindo seeks, but has not pleaded for, is a cause of

action for quantum meruit. A quantum meruit claim can support an unjust

enrichment claim. See Owens v. Curry, Tr. Of Milton C. Curry & Mamie W. Curry Revocable

Living Tr., No. 02-22-00182-CV, 2023 WL 3017928, at *10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

Apr. 20, 2023, pet. denied) (mem. op.). To recover under quantum meruit, Galindo

had to prove that (1) valuable services or materials were furnished, (2) to the parties

sought to be charged, (3) which were accepted by the parties sought to be charged,

and (4) under circumstances that reasonably notified the recipient that the

complaining party, in performing, expected to be paid by the recipient. Kitchen v.

                                           9
Frusher, 181 S.W.3d 467, 477 n.6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (op. on

reh’g).

          Quantum meruit is an equitable theory of recovery which is based on an

implied agreement to pay for benefits received. Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of Corpus

Christi, 832 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Tex. 1992). With regard to the fourth element, not only

must the plaintiff expect to be paid for the services but also there must be proof that

the recipient of the services had reasonable notice that the plaintiff, in performing the

services, expected to be paid by the recipient. Collins & Aikman Floorcoverings, Inc. v.

Thomason, 256 S.W.3d 402, 408 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. denied).

          Not only has Galindo not mentioned quantum meruit as a cause of action,

although given ample opportunity to do so, his pleading that he performed additional

work according to the original contract negates any such cause of action. Without

either a new contract or quantum meruit claim or allegation, Galindo is unable to

establish a claim for unjust enrichment.

          Galindo attempts to establish that the additional work he performed, for which

he seeks compensation, was performed in addition to the work required under the

original contract; however, the Petersons’ suit in justice court makes clear that the

additional work performed by Galindo was to comply with his obligations under the

original contract. Galindo has not pleaded any factual basis for treating the additional

work as anything other than work performed under the original contract, which the

Petersons paid in full.

                                            10
       We conclude that Galindo’s independent cause of action for unjust enrichment

has no basis in law or in fact.

Claims under Chapter 28 of the Texas Property Code

       Section 28.002 of the Property Code provides,

       If an owner or a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner
       receives a written payment request from a contractor for an amount that
       is allowed to the contractor under the contract for properly performed
       work or suitably stored or specially fabricated materials, the owner shall
       pay the amount to the contractor, less any amount withheld as
       authorized by statute, not later than the 35th day after the date the
       owner receives the request.

Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 28.002(a).

       In his pleadings, Galindo alleged that the Petersons’ “failure to timely pay [him]

for the materials and labor [he] provided violate[d] Chapter 28 of the Texas Property

Code, otherwise known as the ‘Prompt Pay Statute.’” Galindo stated that he was

entitled to recover interest on the unpaid invoices. Galindo did not allege that he sent

a written payment request to the Petersons or that they failed to pay any invoices.

Nevertheless, even if the pleadings can be liberally construed to include such

allegations, Galindo has not alleged a cause of action under Chapter 28 of the Texas

Property Code, which requires the existence of a contract.

       Although Rule 91a is a procedural device that must be strictly construed and

narrowly applied, we conclude that none of Galindo’s claims against the Petersons as

                                           11
pleaded have a basis in law or fact and that the trial court appropriately dismissed the

claims. We overrule Galindo’s first and second issues.

Outside Evidence

      In his third issue, Galindo argues that the trial court erred by considering

evidence outside the pleadings in determining the Rule 91a motion. In determining a

Rule 91a motion, the trial court’s factual inquiry is limited to “the pleading of the

cause of action” and any pleading exhibits permitted by Rule 59 of the Texas Rules of

Civil Procedure, which are those attached to or copied into the plaintiff’s pleadings.

Tex. R. Civ. P. 59, 91a.6; see Bethel, 595 S.W.3d at 656; Fiamma Statler, 2020 WL

6334470, at *8. But the trial court’s legal inquiry is not as limited. See Bethel, 595

S.W.3d at 656. In its legal inquiry, a trial court may additionally consider the substance

of the motion to dismiss and any arguments presented at the hearing. See id. at 655.

      At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the Petersons’ counsel stated that

Patios by Design had forfeited its charter and did not have the right to prosecute a

suit. Galindo’s counsel objected to the introduction of evidence or statements about

the forfeiture of the charter stating that the trial court could look only to the

pleadings. The trial court overruled the objection and took judicial notice that Patios

by Design’s charter had been forfeited.

      The trial court stated,

      I cannot find any case law, at this time, that would indicate that a 91a
      motion would be properly heard when a charter has been forfeited. I do
      not believe that - - that the petitioner in this case is allowed to go

                                           12
      forward on the 91a motion. However, the Court on a 91a motion may
      review the filings. I have read all of the filings in this case including the
      first amended petition. The Court understands the seriousness of a 91a
      motion to dismiss, and I understand that I must give the petitioner the
      benefit of assumptions in this case. However, after reading the plaintiffs’
      first amended petition, under breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
      violation of a Prompt Pay Act, I also could not understand what the
      cause of action was.

The trial court’s statements indicated that the ruling on the motion to dismiss was not

based upon the forfeiture of the charter, but rather on the pleadings themselves.

      Galindo’s counsel argued to the trial court that the ruling on the Rule 91a

motion could be made only by considering the pleadings and that he did not have

notice of the argument that the charter had been forfeited. The trial court responded

that a Rule 91a motion is “rarely granted” but explained, “[I]n reading the causes of

action, I don’t understand what they are. And so, if the Court doesn’t understand, I’m

not sure how [the Petersons] are supposed to understand.” Galindo’s counsel again

argued that the pleadings were sufficient to defeat the Rule 91a motion. The trial

court further explained the ruling by stating,

      Your -- your argument, like, whether or not it’s included in the pleadings
      doesn’t matter to me. It’s whether someone is on notice and can
      understand what the issue is in the pleadings, and I cannot understand
      what the issue is.

            I have considered all of the pleadings. I have read everything that
      you’ve written. I’ve still listened to arguments today, and I still don’t
      understand what the issue is. I’m granting the 91a motion.

      Rule 91a.6 does not allow a trial court to consider evidence in ruling on the

motion. A party cannot rely on judicial notice in a Rule 91a proceeding because

                                           13
judicial notice is “a matter of evidence.” Reynolds v. Quantlab Trading Partners US, LP,

608 S.W.3d 549, 557 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.). Although the

trial court took judicial notice that Patios by Design had forfeited its charter, it is clear

that the trial court did not rely on the charter forfeiture in granting the Petersons’

Rule 91a motion to dismiss. We overrule Galindo’s third issue.

Attorney’s Fees

       Galindo argues in an unassigned issue that because the trial court erred by

granting the Petersons’ Rule 91a motion to dismiss, it also erred by awarding

attorney’s fees to the Petersons and not awarding him attorney’s fees. Because we

hold that the trial court did not err by granting the Petersons’ Rule 91a motion to

dismiss, we hold that the trial court did not err by awarding the Petersons attorney’s

fees and denying Galindo attorney’s fees. 1 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.7.

                                       Conclusion

       Having overruled all of Galindo’s issues on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

                                                         /s/ Wade Birdwell

                                                         Wade Birdwell
                                                         Justice

Delivered: April 25, 2024

       Galindo does not challenge the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to the
       1

Petersons.

                                             14