X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Parker Plaza West Ltd. owns a shopping center in Plano from which Boniuk Investments leases approximately 35 percent of the space. Ross Stores subleased most of that space. Though Ross had typically performed its own roof maintenance, once it vacated the premises, two Boniuk representatives found the roof in disrepair. After soliciting bids, Boniuk hired Mid States Roofing to fix and replace the roof. Mid States had already begun work when Boniuk realized that its master lease with Parker Plaza required Parker to maintain the roof. Boniuk told Mid States to tear up the work they’d done already and replace it with material that was formerly on the roof. Boniuk notified Parker Plaza by letter about what was happening. Several letters were exchanged before Parker Plaza sent one demanding that Boniuk replace the roof at its own expense. Boniuk had Mid States complete the replacement but then sued Parker Plaza for breach of contract. Parker Plaza filed a counterclaim to terminate the lease agreement. After a bench trial, a $73,804 judgment was entered for Parker Plaza, however it did not terminate the lease. Boniuk contests the sufficiency of the evidence. HOLDING:Affirmed. Boniuk argues that, because expert testimony was needed on whether roof replacement was necessary, Parker Plaza’s evidence was lacking. The court agrees that expert testimony may have been helpful, but it concludes that Boniuk has not cited any cases where such expert testimony was required. Nor does the court find that expert testimony would have been necessary, as the rest of the evidence was both legally and factually sufficient. The court also finds the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the condition of the roof was the result of normal wear and tear, not from any repairs, alterations or other work performed by Boniuk or Ross. The court nonetheless rejects Parker Plaza’s argument that it was unfairly surprised by Boniuk’s failure to timely disclose information during discovery about the basis and method of calculation for the common area maintenance overcharges it was seeking in it suit. And the evidence supported the trial court’s refusal to terminate the lease. OPINION:Joseph B. Morris, J.; Morris, Whittington, and O’Neill, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.