Court Opinion

ID: 9635261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:44:16.334796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:21.743451
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
This is a breach of contract action involving Ramex, a general contractor; Tamcon, a subcontractor; Standard, a supplier of materials; and Seaboard, Ramex’s surety. In our original opinion we reversed and remanded a jury verdict in favor of Tamcon and Standard.
TAMCON’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
Tamcon moved for rehearing, contending that certain evidence established waiver as a matter of law. Tamcon concedes that the evidence supporting this point was not in the appellate record, so it was attached as an exhibit to its motion for rehearing. However, we may not consider exhibits or appendices attached to briefs or motions that are not part of the appellate record. Till v. Thomas, 10 S.W.3d 730, 734 (TexApp.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.); America Online Inc. v. Williams, 958 S.W.2d 268, 275 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). We overrule Tamcon’s motion for rehearing.
*139STANDARD’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
Standard Cement also moved for rehearing. It argues that the case we relied upon in our original opinion, Wright Way Constr. Co. v. Harlingen Mall, 799 S.W.2d 415 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied) is distinguishable from the present case. We agree.
The Wright Way case involved a warranty claim against the contractor (and his surety) over the quality of work performed by the contractor. Here, the claim is against a contractor’s surety for monies due on materials supplied.
It is not disputed that Standard provided materials used on the project and that Standard has not been paid for those materials. Therefore we agree that Standard’s recovery is dependent upon whether Standard perfected its claim in accordance with the statutory requirements. It does not depend on the outcome of a dispute between a contractor and subcontractor.
Because a subcontractor or supplier may not place a hen against a public building, the legislature passed what has become known as the McGregor Act, which requires contractors to secure a bond to ensure payment. See Featherlite Building Products Corp. v. Constructors Unlimited, 714 S.W.2d 68, 69 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 th Dist.] 1986, writ refd n.r.e.). In order to recover under this system, a supplier must mail to the contractor and his surety notice of claim. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 2253.041 (Vernon Pamph.2000). This notice must be accompanies by a sworn statement of account which sets forth that the amount claimed is just and correct, and that all just and lawful offsets known to the affiant have been allowed. Id. If a written contract does not govern the relationship between the supplier and the contractor, the notices must also show for whom the material was supplied, the date of performance or delivery, a reasonable identification and the amount due. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 2253.048 (Vernon Pamph.2000). Additionally, the claim must include copies of documents, invoices or orders that reasonably identify the project. Id.
Because the Act is remedial in nature,“it is to be given the most comprehensive and liberal construction possible.” Featherlite, 714 S.W.2d at 69; see also City of Mason v. West Texas Util. Co., 150 Tex. 18, 237 S.W.2d 273, 280 (1951). Numerous cases have held that the Act’s notice requirements are satisfied by substantial compliance. Id. (quoting Sims v. William S. Baker, Inc., 568 S.W.2d 725, 730 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1978, writ refd n.r.e.)); see also United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Parker Bros. & Co., 437 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1969, writ refd n.r.e.); Lesikar Construction Company v. Acoustex, Inc., 509 S.W.2d 877 (Tex.Civ.App.Fort Worth 1974, writ refd n.r.e.); Citadel Construction Co. v. Smith, 483 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.Civ.App.Austin 1972, writ refd n.r.e.).
The jury was asked whether Standard had perfected its claim under the statutory requirements. The jury found that it had. Our review of the record shows that Standard substantially complied with the statutory requirements. We will not disturb this jury’s findings on this issue.
Standard’s motion for rehearing is granted and we affirm the trial court’s judgment in favor of Standard against Seaboard Surety Company.