Laurel Miller and Eliana Miller v. Debo Homes, LLC

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided July 28, 2015·No. 14-15-00004-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 14-15-00004-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/28/2015 8:27:19 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK

CAUSE NO. 14-15-00004-CV

FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/28/2015 8:27:19 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk LAUREL MILLER AND ELIANA MILLER Appellants and Cross-Appellees

vs.

DEBO HOMES, LLC Appellee and Cross-Appellant

From Cause No. 13-DCV-209822 In the 400th Judicial District Court Fort Bend County, Texas

APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT DEBO HOMES, LLC’S BRIEF

Craig Welscher State Bar No. 21167200 Nicholas Martinez State Bar No. 24087986 The Welscher Law Firm, P.C. 1111 North Loop West, Suite 702 Houston, Texas 77008 (713) 862-0800 – Telephone (713) 862-4003 – Facsimile Email: nmartinez@welscherlaw.com Attorneys for Appellee & Cross-Appellant

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Appellants and Cross-Appellees

Laurel Miller and Eliana Miller

Appellants’ Counsel

Timothy A. Hootman- Appellate Counsel SBN: 09965450 2402 Pease St. Houston, Texas 77003 Telephone: (713) 247-9548 Facsimile: (713) 583-9523 Email: thootman2000@yahoo.com

Brian H. Crockett- Trial Counsel SBN: 24074094 10565 Katy Freeway, Ste. 400 Houston, Texas 77024 Telephone: (713) 779-3476 Email: brian@crockettlaw.com

Appellee and Cross-Appellant

Debo Homes, LLC

Appellee’s Trial & Appellate Counsel

Craig Welscher SBN: 21167200 Nicholas Martinez SBN: 24089786 The Welscher Law Firm, P.C. 1111 N. Loop West, Suite 702 Houston, Texas 77008 Telephone: (713) 862-0800 Facsimile: (713) 862-4003 Email: nmartinez@welscherlaw.com ii REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Appellee moves to place this case to the argument calendar. This case meets

the standards in Rule 39.1 for oral argument, in that (a) this appeal is not frivolous,

(b) the dispositive issues raised in this appeal have not been recently and

authoritatively decided, (c) the facts and legal arguments are not adequately

presented in the briefs and record, and (d) as described in the accompanying

memorandum, the decisional process would be significantly aided by oral

argument.

Specifically, this brief presents extensive arguments regarding what is

factually sufficient to support a Deceptive Trade Practices Act finding. Appellee

believes that oral argument would allow this Court to question counsel regarding

specific pieces of evidence from trial and how those relate to the DTPA issues.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE Identity of Counsel and Parties.................................................................................ii

Request for Oral Argument......................................................................................iii

Table of Contents.....................................................................................................iv

Index of Authorities……………...........................................................................viii

Statement of the Case................................................................................................1

Issues Presented……….............................................................................................2

Statement of Facts….................................................................................................3

Summary of the Argument........................................................................................8

Argument...................................................................................................................9

A. THE DTPA REQUIRES THE MILLERS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR A REPRESENTATION IN § 17.46(B) ........................................................................9

1. The No Evidence Standard.........................................................................9

2. The DTPA Elements and Standard............................................................9

B. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE ALLEGED REPRESENTATIONS WERE BREACHED BY DEBO..............................................................................................................10

1. Representation No. 1: That Debo Hires the Highest Quality Subcontractors..........................................................................................10

2. Representation No. 2: Onsite Supervision and Inspections.....................14

3. Representation No. 3: That Debo Obtains Third-Party Inspections........16

iv 4. Representation No. 4: The AC Unit in the Model Home Would be in the Home in Question....................................................................................16

5. Representation No. 5: That All Problems Would be Fixed.....................17

C. THE ALLEGED REPRESENTATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE JURY’S FINDING TO QUESTION NO. 1 ARE NONACTIONABLE PUFFERY UNDER THE DTPA................19

1. The Puffery Standard...............................................................................19

2. The Millers’ Representations at Trial are Puffery and Opinion...............21

a. Representation No. 1: That Debo Hires the Highest Quality Subcontractors.....................................................................................21

b. Representation No. 2: Onsite Supervision and Inspections................23

c. Representation No. 5: That All Problems Would be Fixed................25

3. Debo’s Alleged Representations Are Nonactionable Opinions Under Ghosh.......................................................................................................27

a. (1) Intertwined with direct representations of present facts and (3) based on past or present facts..............................................................27

b. (2) The speaker has knowledge of its falsity.......................................28

c. (4) The speaker has special knowledge of facts that will occur or exist in the future.........................................................................................30

D. THE MILLERS SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED PREJUDGMENT INTEREST..................31

1. Debo’s Tender Into the Court Registry Precludes Prejudgment Interest......................................................................................................31

E. THE MILLERS SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST.................32

1. Debo’s Deposit Into the Court Registry Halts Postjudgment Interest......................................................................................................32 v Conclusion...............................................................................................................32

Prayer.......................................................................................................................33

Certificate of Compliance........................................................................................34

Certificate of Support..............................................................................................34

Certificate of Service...............................................................................................34

Appendix....................................................................................................................a

1. Clerk’s Record

a. Volume 1

i. Plaintiff’s Original Petition, Requests for Disclosure and Demand for Jury Trial

b. Volume 2

i. Plaintiffs Trial Witness List

ii. Jury Charge

c. Volume 3

i. Defendant Debo Homes, LLC’s Motion to Disregard the Jury’s Answer to Question Number One

ii.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Laurel Miller and Eliana Miller v. Debo Homes, LLC, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Laurel Miller and Eliana Miller v. Debo Homes, LLC (Laurel Miller and Eliana Miller v. Debo Homes, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Garza
164 S.W.3d 607 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Miga v. Jensen
96 S.W.3d 207 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
Rush v. Barrios
56 S.W.3d 88 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Trenholm v. Ratcliff
646 S.W.2d 927 (Texas Supreme Court, 1983)
Paull v. Capital Resource Management, Inc.
987 S.W.2d 214 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
McCrea v. Cubilla Condominium Corp. N.V.
685 S.W.2d 755 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Tiller v. McLure
121 S.W.3d 709 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Hedley Feedlot, Inc. v. Weatherly Trust
855 S.W.2d 826 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Pennington v. Singleton
606 S.W.2d 682 (Texas Supreme Court, 1980)
Lozano v. Lozano
52 S.W.3d 141 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Pegasus Energy Group, Inc. v. Cheyenne Petroleum Co.
3 S.W.3d 112 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company v. Billiot
342 S.W.2d 161 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Werth v. Johnson
294 S.W.3d 908 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
Reynolds v. Murphy
188 S.W.3d 252 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Browning Oil Co., Inc. v. Luecke
38 S.W.3d 625 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
GJP, INC. v. Ghosh
251 S.W.3d 854 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Matis v. Golden
228 S.W.3d 301 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Autohaus, Inc. v. Aguilar
794 S.W.2d 459 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)