Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:John Zinda was a limited partner in McCann Street Ltd. (the partnership). The other limited partners were brothers and sister, C. Kyle Smith, G. P. Smith III (Trey) and Cheyene Smith. McCann Street General Inc., of which Kyle and Trey were the controlling shareholders, was the corporate general partner. The partnership owned and operated a restaurant, the McCann Street Bar and Grill, which was managed by Zinda. On learning Zinda had taken substantial sums out of the business coffers for his own use, the other partners foreclosed on his partnership interest and sold that interest. Zinda sued the partnership, its general partner, and the other limited partners, individually, for excluding (or evicting) him from the business and for a number of other wrongs allegedly resulting from their actions. Zinda did not prevail at trial on any of his allegations. In response to Zinda’s suit against them, the partnership and partners, Kyle and Trey, sued Zinda for unpaid rent on the property, for failure to repay a personal note to Kyle and Trey, and for money allegedly due to Kyle on Zinda’s sale of a separate piece of property. At the close of the evidence, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of Cheyene. The jury also found in favor of the partnership and partners, Kyle and Trey, on all of their issues. Zinda appealed and named Cheyene as an appellee, even though Zinda did not appeal the directed verdict Cheyene was granted. Therefore, the actual “appellees” were the partnership, its general partner, and the other limited partners, Kyle and Trey (the Smiths). HOLDING:Affirmed. Zinda contends the court erred by failing to submit an issue to the jury on wrongful eviction, because there was some evidence he was wrongfully evicted. The court finds that, even if there was some evidence Zinda’s eviction was wrongful, the jury charge in this case contained a question asking whether the partnership had failed to comply with the terms of the lease. The jury found the partnership did not fail to comply. The court holds that that finding necessarily covers the issue of whether Zinda was wrongfully evicted pursuant to the terms of the lease: if Zinda did not prove the partnership failed to comply with the terms of the lease, then Zinda did not prove the eviction was wrongful. The court concludes that the trial court therefore did not err by failing to submit the requested questions. But Zinda argues he conclusively proved the eviction was wrongful. He contends the partnership did not comply with Texas Property Code �93.002(f) because it did not put a written notice on the restaurant’s front door stating where Zinda could obtain a new key, and that this constitutes a breach, as a matter of law, that would prevent the partnership from executing the eviction under the terms of the agreement. The court finds, however, that there is evidence that Zinda was present when the locks were being changed and that he and the Smiths had a meeting immediately thereafter to consider their options. Thus, unlike the absentee landlord situation that would be remedied by the posting of a formal notice on the door, the court concludes that there is no evidence Zinda was harmed by the failure to so post a notice, where all parties were fully involved in the proceedings leading up to the changing of the locks. Zinda also contends that the foreclosure judgment on his partnership interest is a nullity that must be set aside. His contention is based on the underlying argument that, rather than selling the restaurant property, the partnership should have wound up the partnership’s affairs. But the court finds that the judgment is in the nature of an order of accounting. The court states that it foreclosed the Smiths’ security interest in Zinda’s limited partnership interest, and the order directed the seizure and sale of any available collateral. The court holds that, although Zinda suggests the foreclosure was of the real estate, that is not precisely correct � it was of his interest in the partnership. When read in that light, the court concludes that Zinda’s argument is not persuasive because the document partially entitled as the deed of trust is actually much more than a real property device in this instance. In conclusion, the court holds that the trial court did not commit error in its granting of directed verdict or in its denial of Zinda’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; Zinda was not entitled to the recovery of damages or attorney’s fees; judgment on the appellees’ counterclaims was proper; evidence of Zinda’s gambling, options trading and misuse of money was proper; and no error is shown in the trial court’s failure to charge the jury on simulated transactions, commercial bribery, theft or malice. Therefore, the court affirms the trial court’s judgment. OPINION:Ross, J.; Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, 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.