Marinecorp International, Ltd. v. the Chopper Group, LLC and Outlaw Country, LLC

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 30, 2015·No. 01-14-00707-CV·Published

Opinion

No. 01-14-00707-CV

IN THE FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 10/30/2015 1:52:16 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE at HOUSTON, TEXAS Clerk

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– MARINECORP INTERNATIONAL, LTD. Appellant, v. THE CHOPPER GROUP, LLC, AND

OUTLAW COUNTRY, LLC Appellees. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Appealed from the 80th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2012-23983 ________________________________________________________________

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT ________________________________________________________________

THE STROTHER LAW FIRM Macon D. Strother Texas Bar No. 19420000 4306 Yoakum Blvd., Suite 560 Houston, Texas 77006 Tel. (713) 557-9238 mstrother@strotherlawfirm.com ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT, MARINECORP INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

APPELLANT REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Appellant: Marinecorp International, Ltd.

Counsel for Appellant: The Strother Law Firm Macon D. Strother State Bar No. 19420000 4306 Yoakum Blvd., Suite 560 Houston, Texas 77006 Tel. (713) 557-9238 mstrother@strotherlawfirm.com

Appellees: The Chopper Group, LLC Backwoods Country Club, LLC Tony Miller

Counsel for Appellees: The Akers Firm Brock C. Akers State Bar No. 00953250 3401 Allen Pkwy., Suite 101 Houston, Texas 77019 Tel. (713) 877-2500 Fax (713) 583-8662 bca@akersfirm.com

Appellee: Kyle Tones

Counsel for Appellee: The Cochell Law Firm, PC Stephen R. Cochell State Bar No. 24044255 5555 W. Loop S., Suite 200 Bellaire, Texas 77401 Tel. (832) 767-1065 Fax (832) 767-1686 srcochell@gmail.com

i Appellees: Lee Harless, pro se Dawn Marie Harless, pro se

Counsel for Appellees: N/A

Trial Court: Hon. Judge Larry Weiman Judge, 80th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline, 9th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Tel. (713) 368-6100

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity of Parties and Counsel..........................................................................i-ii

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………..iii

Index of Authorities..........................................................................................vii-x

Statement of the Case....................................................................................... 1-3

Statement Regarding Oral Argument...............................................................3-4

Issues Presented...............................................................................................4-6

Statement of the Facts......................................................................................7-11

Summary of the Argument…………………………………………………..12-15

Argument:

Relative to Issue No. 1: Chopper and Outlaw's claims of a breach of contract fail because they did not meet the conditions precedent of giving written notice of the alleged defaults and allowing Marinecorp thirty days to cure each such default as required by the subject leases. [Germane to Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, CR 449 and Motion for New Trial, CR 498]…………………………………………………………… 15-19

Relative to Issue 2: Chopper and Outlaw deprived themselves of any excuse for ceasing performance on their part because they elected to treat the leases as continuing. [Germane to Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, CR 449 and Motion for New Trial, CR 498]……………………………………………………………… 20-22

Relative to Issue 3: The trial court should have rendered judgment against Chopper and Outlaw for damages for past and future lease payments, as ample evidence existed of Marinecorp’s mitigation of damages. [Germane to Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, CR 449 and Motion for New Trial, CR 498]………………………………… 23-24

iii Relative to Issue 4: Outlaw should not have been awarded damages as a result of not being able to open its dance hall for business as a result of Marinecorp's actions because the overwhelming evidence attributes causation of damages to Outlaw preventing it from opening earlier due to its own actions or inactions. [Germane to Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, CR 449 and Motion for New Trial, CR 498]………… 24-29

Relative to Issue 5: The trial court committed harmful error by not submitting to the jury an instruction and question regarding mitigation of damages as it relates to Outlaw. [Germane to Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, CR 449 and Motion for New Trial, CR 498]……....... 24-29

Relative to Issue 6: Chopper and Outlaw’s claims constitute a breach of contract action and not a DTPA violation…………………….. 30-41

Relative to Issue 7: Chopper and Outlaw’s claims for damages as a result of an alleged wrongful eviction fail as a matter of law and do not constitute a DTPA violation. [Germane to Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, CR 449; Third Supplement to Motion to Disregard, CR 592- 593; and Motion for New Trial, CR 498]……………………… 30-41

Relative to Issue 8: The evidence does not support the jury's answers to a violation of the DTPA by Marinecorp because:

(a) There was no evidence or insufficient evidence to establish that Marinecorp did not have an intention of fulfilling its promise when made. [Germane to Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, CR 449 and Motion for New Trial, CR 498]…………………….. 30-41

(b) There was no evidence or insufficient evidence that any representation by Marinecorp was a producing cause of damages to Chopper and Outlaw. [Germane to Motion for New Trial, CR 498]……………………………………………………… 30-41

(c) There was no evidence or insufficient to establish that Marinecorp’s actions were unconscionable. [Germane to Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, CR 449 and Motion for New Trial, CR 498]…………………………………………………….. 30-41

iv (d) There was no evidence of insufficient evidence to establish that Marinecorp breached an implied warranty, as the lease provisions stated the tenants accepted the property in its “as-is” condition. [Germane to Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, CR 449 and Motion for New Trial, CR 498]……………………… 30-41

Relative to Issue 9: The trial court should not have awarded Chopper and Outlaw pre-judgment interest because the alleged damages were not definitely determinable at a definite time……………………. 41-42

Relative to Issue 10: The trial court should have awarded Marinecorp damages for Miller and Tones' breach of the subject guaranty agreements. [Germane to Motion for New Trial, CR 498]……….. 42-43

Relative to Issue 11: The trial court should not have rendered judgment for cumulative damages for concurrent causes of action arising out of the same acts. [Germane to Supplemental Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, CR 513]…………………………………………... 43-47

Relative to Issue 12: The trial court should have entered judgment against Miller for the full amount of principal and interest owing on his promissory note payable to Marinecorp. [Germane to Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, CR 449 and Motion for New Trial, CR 498] ………………………………………………………………. 48

Relative to Issue 13: The evidence does not support the jury's answers awarding Chopper and Outlaw damages for loss of the benefit of the bargain; remedial damages; expenses; loss of income; loss of use; and wrongful eviction. [Germane to Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, CR 449; Supplemental Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, CR 513-517; Third Supplement to Motion to Disregard Jury Findings, CR 592-593; and Motion for New Trial, CR 498]……………………….. 48-69

Conclusion and Prayer........................................................................... 70-73

Certificate of Service.............................................................................. 73

Certificate of Compliance With Tex.R.App.P. 9.4(i)(3)……………… 74

v Appendix................................................................................................ 75

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

Marinecorp International, Ltd. v. the Chopper Group, LLC and Outlaw Country, LLC, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Marinecorp International, Ltd. v. the Chopper Group, LLC and Outlaw Country, LLC (Marinecorp International, Ltd. v. the Chopper Group, LLC and Outlaw Country, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Long Trusts v. Griffin
222 S.W.3d 412 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
Gym-N-I Playgrounds, Inc. v. Snider
220 S.W.3d 905 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Pope v. Moore
711 S.W.2d 622 (Texas Supreme Court, 1986)
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner
953 S.W.2d 706 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)
Pool v. Ford Motor Co.
715 S.W.2d 629 (Texas Supreme Court, 1986)
Briseno v. Martin
561 S.W.2d 794 (Texas Supreme Court, 1977)
Pinson v. Red Arrow Freight Lines, Inc.
801 S.W.2d 14 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
James L. Gang & Associates, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.
198 S.W.3d 434 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
American Baler Co. v. SRS Systems, Inc.
748 S.W.2d 243 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Sorbus, Inc. v. UHW CORP.
855 S.W.2d 771 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Holt Atherton Industries, Inc. v. Heine
835 S.W.2d 80 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Sterling
822 S.W.2d 1 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
Western Irr. Co. v. Reeves County Land Co.
233 S.W.2d 599 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1950)
Crawford v. Ace Sign, Inc.
917 S.W.2d 12 (Texas Supreme Court, 1996)
Leyendecker & Associates, Inc. v. Wechter
683 S.W.2d 369 (Texas Supreme Court, 1984)
Black Lake Pipe Line Co. v. Union Construction Co.
538 S.W.2d 80 (Texas Supreme Court, 1976)
Harris v. Harris
765 S.W.2d 798 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Alexander & Alexander of Texas, Inc. v. Bacchus Industries, Inc.
754 S.W.2d 252 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1988)
W.O. Bankston Nissan, Inc. v. Walters
754 S.W.2d 127 (Texas Supreme Court, 1988)
Board of Regents of the University of Texas v. S & G Construction Co.
529 S.W.2d 90 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1975)