Court Opinion

ID: 9841406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 11:09:24.659434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:21.664395
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                         TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                No. 10-22-00352-CV

DEBORAH LONIS AND RUSSEL LONIS,
                                                           Appellants
v.

BRANDON WALTON D/B/A BRANDED BUILDERS,
                                  Appellee

                           From the 77th District Court
                             Freestone County, Texas
                             Trial Court No. CV20342

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Deborah and Russel Lonis appeal from the trial court's take nothing judgment

rendered after a trial before the court in their suit against contractor Brandon Walton

doing business as Branded Builders. In four issues, the Lonises attack the sufficiency of

the evidence to support the judgment. We affirm.
                                               Background

       The Lonises bought an older home in November 2017. They knew when they

purchased it that it had obvious foundation issues. Almost a year later, the Lonises hired

Walton to work on their house. Although Walton and his crew did a considerable

amount of work over a period of several months, the foundation continued to move, and

the Lonises experienced additional problems. Eventually they sued Walton for violations

of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and for fraudulent inducement, negligence,

negligent misrepresentation, negligent hiring, supervision, and/or management, and

breach of contract.

       The parties entered into a "Service Contract" on October 4, 2018, which addresses

foundation repairs as well as some miscellaneous repairs. The "Foundation Repair"

section listed the following tasks to be performed by Walton:

                  All trash along with existing old gas lines under residence will be
                  completely removed and discarded. "Note gas lines are no longer in use
                  and main gas supply has be [sic] disconnected properly"

                  Any damaged or rotten lumber will be removed, this includes floor joist
                  [sic], outside main wall beams along with inner floor support beams.

                  Existing undamaged beams will be reset and cut to fit tight through out
                  [sic] foundation. Some beams may be removed and replaced due to
                  improper cuts or short in lengths, these beams may be used in other areas
                  if needed.

                  Additional beams will be installed where required for proper support of
                  residence.

                  An additional 6" x 6" beam will be installed along main load bearing wall,
                  this beam will be attached and secured from one side of residence to other
                  providing required support. New concrete sets will be installed every 6
                  to 8 feet as required.

Lonis v. Walton                                                                                Page 2
                  All outside main wall beams along with inner floor support beams will
                  have both 6" Headlok structural wood screws or 3" x 6" metal mending
                  plates installed at all joints and notches.

                  Residential home will be raised/lowered as needed throughout
                  foundation to a level point. "Note throughout home small holes may be
                  drilled inside near wall lines with flags providing low and high points.
                  These small holes will be filled when finished." Existing damaged or
                  improper blocking will be removed and discarded. New blocking will be
                  installed correctly where needed.

                  Some interior doors may need to be adjusted, this is included in the
                  estimate.

The contract contained a provision stating that Branded Builders recommends allowing

the foundation to settle for six months. It also provided that once the foundation has time

to settle Branded Builders will return to make adjustments where needed free of charge.

Further, the contract informed the homeowner that "Branded Builders warranties all

work performed for 10 years. A detailed warranty may be presented upon request."

Finally, the contract proclaims: "Branded Builders is a [sic] Insured and Bonded

Company." The Lonises paid $9,802.20, the agreed upon amount for the services.

       Walton and his crew worked at the Lonises' home in October and November 2018.

On November 8, 2018, Deborah signed a document entitled "Satisfactory Agreement"

which states that "all work has been fully completed" and "owner has agreed to final

payment with complete satisfaction of work that was performed" at her home. However,

six weeks later, Deborah saw changes in the home. Believing the home was no longer

level, she contacted Walton. He re-leveled the house in March 2019. At that time,

Deborah signed a Foundation Repair Verification.                    That document contained the

Lonis v. Walton                                                                              Page 3
statement: "By residential owner signing this form owner is satisfied with work that has

been completed."     Unfortunately, after three or four months, the home displayed

additional signs that the foundation was not level.

       Deborah testified that, at that point, Walton told her he "could never get it right,"

and he was not going to do any more work on the house. Deborah testified that she spoke

to another company about repairing the foundation. That company agreed to do the

work for $19,500. She also obtained an estimate of $28,000 to cover all remaining

necessary repairs.

       Walton explained that he is a general contractor and has prior experience repairing

foundations. Three months before the Lonises purchased the home, the previous owner

asked him to look at it. Walton enumerated the many defects he saw at that time. He did

not do any work for the previous owner. After the Lonises bought it, he inspected the

house for them. He again described the numerous defects he saw, noting that changes

had been made to the foundation since he had seen it the first time. Notably, the front

left corner was sixteen inches too high.

       Walton presented twenty-two photos of the Lonises' home that he took when they

signed the contract, before he started any work. He described the problems illustrated in

the pictures and said the previous owner of the house was responsible for the poor

condition of the house. Walton testified that due to the age and condition of the house,

it could never be leveled. He clarified that "[i]f you can get it within five degrees, ten

Lonis v. Walton                                                                       Page 4
degrees, you're doing pretty good" but "[t]he house is going to move." He stated that it

would take $40,000 to make this house perfect. But since it would not be reasonable to

spend $40,000 on this house, he discussed with the Lonises that he could make the house

livable, not perfect. He recommended the Lonises have the base foundation repairs

completed and then remove and replace the flooring, subflooring, and floor joists. He

understood that they planned to do a complete renovation.

       Walton told the Lonises he could fix the foundation and drafted the agreement.

He testified that he did all tasks listed in the contract under the "Foundation Repair"

heading. He leveled the home and then made adjustments twice after that. After the

work he did, the house was an acceptable quarter of an inch to three-eighths of an inch

out of level. Walton testified that, "I did my work through the limitations and what they

expected me to do." However, he admitted that the contract required him to remove all

damaged wood including floor joists, and all of the floor joists needed to be replaced.

Yet, he explained, he did not remove any floor joists because he would have to remove

the floor, and the Lonises would have to leave the house. He stated that he met industry

standards and that Branded Builders provides a ten-year warranty for all work

performed. He testified that, as long as the Lonises have issues with the work he did on

their foundation, he will come back and fix it "under certain stipulations" in the warranty.

He provided them a copy of the warranty when the work was completed "to give them

an idea of what we do stand behind and what we don't stand behind."

Lonis v. Walton                                                                       Page 5
       Walton testified that during his last conversation with Russel, who was agitated,

Russel made comments that Walton took as threats. As a result, Walton did not feel safe

enough to return to the Lonises' home. The Lonises introduced forty pictures taken in

May 2021 by someone they asked to look at their foundation. When shown those

pictures, Walton identified numerous plates, blocks, shims, and wedges that had been

moved, added, or altered since the last time he worked on the home. He also noted an

area where new spray foam had been added. However, Deborah denied having anyone

do any work on the foundation after Branded Builders worked on it in March 2019.

       The case was submitted to the court without a jury. The trial court found that the

Lonises did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Walton, doing business

as Branded Builders, violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act or committed

fraudulent inducement, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, or negligent hiring,

supervision, and/or management.      The trial court found that Walton breached the

contract by not replacing damaged or rotten floor joists. However, it also found no

evidence establishing what floor joists were damaged or rotten and insufficient evidence

that the failure to replace any damaged or rotten floor joists caused the damages

complained of. Therefore, the court found Walton was not liable for breach of contract.

The court rendered a judgment that the Lonises take nothing against Walton, doing

business as Branded Builders. This appeal ensued.

Lonis v. Walton                                                                    Page 6
                               Sufficiency of the Evidence

       In their first three issues, the Lonises assert the evidence is legally and factually

sufficient to show that Walton, doing business as Branded Builders, violated the Texas

Deceptive Trade Practices Act and made material false representations and negligent

misrepresentations. In their fourth issue, they contend the "trial court erred in finding

that no evidence existed that [they] suffered any damages" due to Walton's breach of

contract. They assert that Walton's failure to continue to make repairs to their foundation

caused additional damage to their home, requiring an additional $47,500 to repair.

Further, they contend they were harmed by not receiving the benefit of a fixed

foundation, replaced floor joists, a ten-year warranty, and insurance coverage.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

       In an appeal of a judgment rendered after a bench trial, the trial court’s findings of

fact have the same weight as a jury’s verdict, and we review the legal and factual

sufficiency of the evidence used to support them just as we would review a jury’s

findings. In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 249, 253 (Tex. 2000); Anderson v. Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d

791, 794 (Tex. 1991). We review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo; that is, we

review the trial court’s legal conclusions drawn from the facts to determine their

correctness. See BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002).

       A party attacking the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting an adverse

finding on an issue on which the party bore the burden of proof must demonstrate all

Lonis v. Walton                                                                        Page 7
vital facts in support of the issue were established as a matter of law. Dow Chem. Co. v.

Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam). The analysis requires that we first

examine the record in the light most favorable to the verdict for some evidence

supporting the finding, crediting evidence favoring the finding if a reasonable fact finder

could and disregarding contrary evidence unless a reasonable fact finder could not. City

of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 807, 822 (Tex. 2005). We must indulge every reasonable

inference that would support the verdict. Id. at 822. Some evidence, meaning more than

a scintilla, exists when the evidence supporting the finding "rises to a level that would

enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions." Merrell Dow

Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997).

       If, however, no evidence appears to support the finding, we then examine the

entire record to determine whether the contrary proposition is established as a matter of

law; the issue will be sustained only if the contrary proposition is conclusively

established. PlainsCapital Bank v. Martin, 459 S.W.3d 550, 557 (Tex. 2015); Francis, 46

S.W.3d at 241. A proposition is established as a matter of law when a reasonable fact

finder could draw only one conclusion from the evidence presented. See City of Keller,

168 S.W.3d at 814-16.

       When considering a factual sufficiency challenge, we consider and weigh all of the

evidence. Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). An appellant attacking

factual sufficiency with respect to an adverse finding on which he had the burden of proof

Lonis v. Walton                                                                      Page 8
must demonstrate that the finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the

evidence. Francis, 46 S.W.3d at 242. We may set aside the finding only if it is so contrary

to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Pool, 715

S.W.2d at 635. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact or pass on

the credibility of the witnesses. See Mar. Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 407 (Tex.

1998). In a bench trial, the trial court may resolve any inconsistencies in the testimony as

well as determine the weight of the evidence. McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694,

697 (Tex. 1986).

CAUSES OF ACTION

       The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act grants consumers a cause of action for

false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. §§ 17.46,

17.50; Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 649 (Tex. 1996).

       The DTPA provides:

                  (a) A consumer may maintain an action where any of the following
                      constitute a producing cause of economic damages or damages for
                      mental anguish:
                  (1) the use or employment by any person of a false, misleading, or
                      deceptive act or practice that is:
                      (A) specifically enumerated in a subdivision of Subsection (b) of
                          Section 17.46 of this subchapter; and
                      (B) relied on by a consumer to the consumer's detriment;

Lonis v. Walton                                                                           Page 9
TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 17.50(a).1               Thus, to establish a DTPA claim under

subsection 17.50(a)(1), the plaintiff must produce evidence that: (1) he was a consumer;

(2) the defendant engaged in at least one of the "laundry list" items enumerated in Section

17.46(b); (3) he detrimentally relied on the false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice;

and (4) the false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice was a producing cause of his

injury. B & W Supply, Inc. v. Beckman, 305 S.W.3d 10, 21 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2009, pet. denied).

        Fraudulent inducement is a species of common-law fraud that arises only in the

context of a contract. IBM v. Lufkin Indus., LLC, 573 S.W.3d 224, 228 (Tex. 2019). A

fraudulent-inducement claim requires proof that: (1) the defendant made a material

misrepresentation; (2) the defendant knew at the time that the representation was false

or made it recklessly without any knowledge of its truth; (3) the defendant intended that

the plaintiff should rely or act on the misrepresentation; (4) the plaintiff relied on the

misrepresentation; and (5) the plaintiff's reliance on the misrepresentation caused injury.

Id.

        To prevail on a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must

show: (1) a representation made by a defendant in the course of its business or in a

1 On appeal the Lonises complain about two of the deceptive acts or practices enumerated in 17.46(b): (2)
causing confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods
or services; and (5) representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics,
ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship,
approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he does not. See id. § 17.46(b)(2), (5).
Lonis v. Walton                                                                                  Page 10
transaction in which it has a pecuniary interest; (2) the representation conveyed false

information for the guidance of others in their business; (3) the defendant did not exercise

reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information; and (4)

the plaintiff suffered pecuniary loss by justifiably relying on the representation.

JPMorgan Chase Bank. N.A. v. Orca Assets G.P, L.L.C., 546 S.W.3d 648, 653-54 (Tex. 2018).

       The essential elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) the existence of a valid

contract; (2) performance or tendered performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach of the

contract by the defendant; (4) damages sustained as a result of the breach. Caprock Inv.

Corp. v. Montgomery, 321 S.W.3d 91, 99 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010, pet. denied). The last

element encompasses a causation requirement. Velvet Snout, LLC v. Sharp, 441 S.W.3d

448, 451 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.).

       Causation

       Causation is an essential element of each of the Lonises' theories of liability. To

prevail on a claim under the DTPA, a plaintiff must prove that a violation of the statute

was a producing cause of the injury. Alexander v. Turtur & Assocs., 146 S.W.3d 113, 117

(Tex. 2004). Proximate cause is the causation standard applicable to claims of negligent

misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement. See Defterios v. Dallas Bayou Bend, Ltd., 350

S.W.3d 659, 664 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. denied) (regarding fraudulent

inducement); Larsen v. Carlene Langford & Assocs., Inc., 41 S.W.3d 245, 250 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2001, pet. denied) (regarding negligent misrepresentation). Both producing cause

Lonis v. Walton                                                                       Page 11
and proximate cause require proof of causation in fact. Alexander, 146 S.W.3d at 117. The

test for cause in fact is whether the act or omission was a substantial factor in causing the

injury without which the harm would not have occurred. W. Inv., Inc. v. Urena, 162

S.W.3d 547, 551 (Tex. 2005). Cause in fact cannot be established by "mere conjecture,

guess, or speculation." Id.

       A loss results from a breach of contract if the loss is the natural, probable, and

foreseeable consequence of the breach. Mead v. Johnson Grp., Inc., 615 S.W.2d 685, 687

(Tex. 1981). The absence of this causal connection between the alleged breach and the

alleged damages will preclude recovery. Prudential Sec., Inc. v. Haugland, 973 S.W.2d 394,

397 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998, pet. denied).

       The evidence shows that, pursuant to the contract, Walton removed trash, old gas

lines, damaged or rotten lumber, and beams with improper cuts or lengths. He reset, cut,

replaced, installed, and secured beams as required. Further, he installed new concrete

sets. Moreover, the evidence shows that Walton leveled the house within an acceptable

amount "out of level." When the work was completed, Deborah signed a document

saying she was completely satisfied with the work. A few months later, after Walton did

additional work on the house, Deborah signed another document saying she was

satisfied with the work. Walton testified that the foundation could be improved but the

house would continue to move.

Lonis v. Walton                                                                       Page 12
       Walton provided pictures and descriptions of the deficiencies in the foundation as

of the date he contracted with the Lonises. He also identified the deficiencies and

irregularities shown in pictures taken two years after he worked on the home. He

explained that the pictures show substantial changes that occurred since 2019 when he

stopped working on the house. Deborah testified, over objection, that repairing the house

now would cost nearly fifty thousand dollars.

       After considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, crediting

favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could, we conclude that the record supports the

trial court's findings of no liability. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 807. While the

evidence shows the condition of the house has deteriorated since Walton worked on it,

there is no evidence connecting Walton's acts or omissions to the condition of the house

after March 2019. Even assuming Deborah's damage estimate is admissible and accurate,

there is no evidence that any act or omission by Walton was a substantial factor in

bringing about the Lonises' damages. See Urena, 162 S.W.3d at 551. It would be pure

conjecture to say that any work Walton did pursuant to the contract, or the fact that he

did not do any work after March 2019, caused the damages illustrated in the pictures

taken in 2021 or described by Deborah. As there is no evidence of causation, the Lonises

cannot prevail on their causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent

inducement, or their DTPA claim. See Alexander, 146 S.W.3d at 117.

Lonis v. Walton                                                                     Page 13
          Walton admitted that the contract required him to replace damaged floor joists,

they were all damaged, and he did not replace any of them. The trial court specifically

found that the evidence is insufficient to prove that Walton's failure to replace the floor

joists caused the damages complained of. The record supports that finding as there is no

evidence showing a causal connection between the failure to replace the floor joists and

any of the damages the Lonises experienced after March 2019. See Haugland, 973 S.W.2d

at 397. Accordingly, the Lonises cannot recover on their breach of contract claim.

                                                 Conclusion

          Because the Lonises did not prove the causation element of their theories of

liability, they did not show that all vital facts in support of their issues were established

as a matter of law. See Francis, 46 S.W.3d at 241. Also, they did not demonstrate that the

trial court's findings are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. See

id. at 242. Therefore, there is legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial

court's findings that Walton is not liable for violations of the DTPA, or for fraudulent

inducement, negligent misrepresentation, or breach of contract. We overrule issues one

through four.2

          We affirm the trial court's judgment.3

2Walton raises one cross-point regarding a ruling on admissibility of damage estimates. Due to our
disposition of the Lonises' issues, we need not reach Walton's cross-point. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

3   All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Lonis v. Walton                                                                                    Page 14
                                             STEVE SMITH
                                             Justice

Before Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed September 21, 2023
[CV06]

Lonis v. Walton                                            Page 15