Opinion
No. 04-07-00070-CV
Delivered and Filed: October 31, 2007.
Appeal from the 218th Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas, Trial Court No. 06-02-00002-CVL, Honorable Stella H. Saxon, Judge Presiding.
AFFIRMED.
Sitting: CATHERINE STONE, Justice, KAREN ANGELINI, Justice, REBECCA SIMMONS, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This appeal arises out of a claim of quantum meruit filed by Appellee Gardner Appraisal Group, Inc. ("Gardner, Inc.") for fees owed in connection with the appraisal of a ranch in La Salle County. On appeal, Appellants Henry Anne Copps and Freddie Copps (collectively "Copps") assert there is no evidence or insufficient evidence to support the trial court's judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Factual Background
Because sufficiency of the evidence is at issue, we review the facts in some detail. Gardner sued the Copps to recover $3,500.00 for preparing and delivering an appraisal of the Copps' ranch. During a bench trial, Derry Thomas Gardner ("Gardner"), a real estate appraiser and president of Gardner, Inc., testified that he was contacted by Phillip Coggin, on behalf of the Copps, to prepare an appraisal of the Copps' ranch in La Salle County for the purpose of refinancing the ranch. Gardner forwarded an engagement letter to Coggin requesting payment before the appraisal was performed. Coggin responded that Mrs. Copps would meet Gardner at the ranch and pay the $3,500.00 fee the following week. Gardner undertook the appraisal for the Copps, before receiving payment, and spent approximately three-quarters of a day at the ranch with Mr. Copps, obtaining a history and surveying the property. Gardner testified to numerous discussions with the Copps concerning the immediate need for the appraisal and the rushed scheduled for the refinancing.
Third-Party Defendant Phillip Coggin filed an answer in this matter, but did not appear for trial.
After completing the appraisal, Gardner delivered the appraisal to the Copps, with a copy of the invoice, and sent a duplicate invoice to Coggin. However, the Copps refused Gardner's demands for payment, claiming they had already paid Coggin for the appraisal. Gardner acknowledged that he did not make a demand for payment on the Copps prior to beginning the appraisal and did not send them a letter of agreement. Although he worked directly with the Copps to obtain information for the appraisal, he understood that all correspondence was to be sent through Coggin, on the Copps' behalf. Henry Anne Copps testified that she received the appraisal and that she understood the appraisal was something for which Gardner was hired. She insisted, however, that she had "already paid for the appraisal by paying Mr. Coggin."
Following a trial on the merits, the trial court found in favor of Gardner, Inc. and ordered the Copps to pay damages in the amount of $3,500.00 and attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,313.00, for a total of $6,813.00.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
When neither findings of fact nor conclusions of law have been filed or requested, the judgment of the trial court after a bench trial implies all necessary findings of fact to support itself. Schoeffler v. Denton, 813 S.W.2d 742, 744 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no writ). However, when a reporter's record is a part of the record, the legal and factual sufficiency of the implied findings may be challenged on appeal "the same as jury findings or a trial court's findings of fact." Roberson v. Robinson, 768 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam); see also Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex. 1994).
A. Legal Sufficiency
A legal sufficiency challenge may be sustained only when (1) the record discloses "a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact; [2] the court is barred by rules of law or of evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; [3] the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla; [or] [4] the evidence establishes conclusively the opposite of the vital fact." City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 810 (Tex. 2005).
B. Factual Sufficiency
When conducting a factual sufficiency review, we consider all of the evidence to determine if the finding is so weak or if the evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that it should be set aside and a new trial ordered. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. S. Plains Switching, Ltd., 174 S.W.3d 348, 354 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). Findings may be overturned only if they are so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Ortiz v. Jones, 917 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (holding that an appellate court must clearly state why trial court's finding is factually insufficient or is so against the great weight and preponderance as to be manifestly unjust).
C. Analysis
The Copps argue there is no evidence or insufficient evidence to support the court's judgment based on quantum meruit. To recover under quantum meruit, proof of four elements is required: (1) either valuable services or materials or both were furnished, (2) to the party sought to be charged, (3) which were accepted, used and enjoyed by the party sought to be charged, (4) under such circumstances as reasonably notified the recipient that the plaintiff, in performing, expected to be paid by the recipient. Vortt Exploration Co., Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Tex. 1990); see also Bashara v. Baptist Mem' l Hosp. Sys., 685 S.W.2d 307, 310 (Tex. 1985). The Copps specifically challenge the sufficiency of Gardner, Inc.'s evidence to support its quantum meruit claim, asserting that "the services rendered in this case were of no benefit to Mr. or Mrs. Copps" as the appraisal was not used or enjoyed by the Copps and they were not reasonably notified that payment was expected from them.
The evidence supports the trial court's judgment. The evidence shows: (1) Gardner, Inc. performed an appraisal of the Copps' ranch; (2) the appraisal was for the benefit of the Copps; (3) the appraisal was accepted by the Copps; and (4) the appraisal was performed under the circumstances that reasonably notified the Copps that Gardner was expecting to be paid. Gardner testified that he performed an appraisal to the standards of the industry and such appraisal benefitted Henry Ann Copps and Freddie Copps in obtaining a loan on the ranch. Gardner worked closely with the Copps, accelerating the delivery of the appraisal to meet the Copps' request. The trial court's judgment is consistent with the evidence presented at trial. There is some, and sufficient, evidence to support the judgment. Accordingly, we overrule this issue.
Attorneys' Fees
In their second appellate issue, the Copps assert the trial court erred in awarding attorneys' fees associated with this action. Without any citation to the record, authority or argument, the Copps state: "[t]he Appellee/Plaintiff did not sustain its burden of proof and is not entitled to recover attorney's fees." A complaint on appeal must address specific errors and not merely attack the trial court's order in general terms. Martinez v. City of El Paso, 169 S.W.3d 488, 491 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, pet. denied). An appellate brief must contain a succinct, clear, accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief. Id. (citing to Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(g)). Rule 38 requires an appellant provide discussion of both the facts and the authorities relied upon as may be necessary to maintain the point at issue. Id. Because the Copps failed to provide this court with a discussion of both the facts and the authorities on which they relied, the Copps have waived this issue and we overrule the same.