Argyle Mechanical Inc. v. Unigus Steel Inc.

A claim is liquidated if the amount of damages may be accurately calculated by the trial judge from the factual as opposed to the conclusory allegations in the plaintiff's petition and the instrument in writing.

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:A general contractor, Argyle Mechanical Inc., contracted with Unigus Steel Inc. for a project at Parkland Hospital. Unigus sued Argyle for breach of contract, suit on sworn account, quantum meruit and misapplication of trust funds when Argyle did not pay all amounts due. Unigus asked for $56,839, plus interest and attorneys’ fees, against Argyle. Unigus also sued Argyle’s officers for damages and attorneys’ fees arising out of the misapplication-of-trust-funds claim. Argyle did not file an answer. Consequently, without holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a default judgment for Unigus. The trial court later denied Argyle’s motion for new trial. On appeal, Argyle argues the trial court erred by not conducting a hearing on unliquidated damages. They also claim there is no evidence to support an award of unliquidated damages. HOLDING:Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. By failing to file an answer, Argyle admitted the allegations in Unigus’ pleading, the court begins. On the other hand, Unigus’ pleading raises questions about the amount of damages attributable to the misapplication of trust funds claim. Unigus did not plead or prove the amount of trust funds received by Argyle from Parkland Hospital. With respect to Crider and McDaniel, Unigus did not plead or produce evidence of the amount of trust funds they received or which came under their control or direction. Thus, the damages relating to Unigus’ misapplication of trust funds claim are unliquidated. Because the damages are unliquidated, the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on those damages. The court thus reverses that portion of the trial court’s default judgment. The trail court also reverses the award of attorneys’ fees as they relate to the misapplication of trust funds claim. The remainder of the judgment is affirmed. OPINION:Whittington, 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 1 article* 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?

Trending Stories

 

Featured Product

Global Briefing

A weekly, curated selection of our international content from around the globe, across the business of law, in-house, regulatory, technology and more, with expert insights from our senior editors.

Learn More

More from ALM

 

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.

Privacy Policy

About Us / Contact Us / Site Map / Advertise With Us/ Customer Service / Terms of Service/ FAQ / Privacy Policy

Publications

Law Topics

Rankings

More

Law.com

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.