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:East Texas Property Management Inc. is a corporation organized and owned by James Les Lake. Premier Transportation is a company that transports mobile homes. In 2002, ETPM made an agreement with a Georgia company that ETPM would assist in the repossession of mobile homes in East Texas for that company. Melissa Manning, an employee of ETPM, engaged Premier as a subcontractor to transport mobile homes for ETPM pursuant to its agreement with the Georgia company. Manning negotiated the agreement with Premier’s director of operations, Jeff Davis. During ETPM and Premier’s working relationship, work orders for repossessions were received at ETPM by Manning, who forwarded the orders to Premier. Eventually, the Georgia company fell behind on its payments to ETPM. In turn, ETPM withheld payment to Premier. Thereafter, a dispute arose between Premier and ETPM concerning whether ETPM had to pay Premier even if the Georgia company failed to pay ETPM. Ultimately, the working relationship between ETPM and Premier ended. Premier initially filed suit against Lake individually and Lake doing business as East Texas Property Management, among others, seeking recovery under breach of contract and quantum meruit. Lake answered and specifically denied that he was liable in the capacity sued and that he conducted business under an assumed or trade name. Premier later discovered that ETPM was incorporated and amended its pleadings accordingly. Following a trial on the merits, a jury found that ETPM and Lake were liable to Premier both for breach of contract and pursuant to its quantum meruit claim. Additionally, the jury was also charged as follows: “QUESTION NUMBER 9[:] Did James Les Lake disclose to Premier Transportation (a) the identity of East Texas Property Management Service, Inc.; and (b) that James Les Lake was acting as an agent of East Texas Property Management Service, Inc.? (Answer “Yes” or “No”) “QUESTION NUMBER 9A[:] Find what date the disclosure was made and that James Les Lake was acting as an agent of East Texas Property Management Service, Inc. (Answer, if any, month, day[,] and year).” The jury answered “Yes” to Question 9 and answered “On or about 7/11/02″ for question 9A. Subsequently, Premier filed a motion to disregard the jury’s answer to questions 9 and 9A. The trial court granted Premier’s motion and entered judgment for Premier against ETPM and Lake jointly and severally. This appeal followed. HOLDING:Affirmed. In his first issue, Lake contended that the trial court erred in ordering that the jury’s responses to question Nos. 9 and 9A be disregarded, because the findings were properly supported by the evidence. A court cannot disregard a jury finding, the court stated, unless the issue is immaterial or the finding is unsupported by the evidence. The court stated that “Lake must demonstrate that the record contains more than a scintilla of evidence to support the jury’s answers to questions 9 and 9A in order to establish that the trial court erred by disregarding the jury’s findings.” Premier argued that the trial court properly disregarded the jury’s responses to question Nos. 9 and 9A, because there was no evidence that Lake disclosed to Premier during contractual negotiations that the principal, ETPM, was a corporation. The court stated it was not aware of a case specifically holding that in order to properly identify a corporate principal, whose name is otherwise the same but for the abbreviated corporate designation “Inc.,” a corporate agent must use the corporate designation. Nonetheless, the court held that Premier’s argument was a reasonable conclusion. Thus, reviewing the record in its entirety, the court found no evidence of record that Lake, on or about July 11, 2002, disclosed to Premier that he was acting on behalf of the principal, East Texas Property Management Services Inc. Therefore, the court held that the trial court correctly disregarded the jury’s findings to question Nos. 9 and 9A. In his second issue, Lake argued that the jury’s response to question Nos. 9 and 9A notwithstanding, Premier failed to obtain findings necessary to support a judgment against him individually. The court found that Lake had several opportunities following the trial court’s decision to make a motion to disregard jury findings or raise the issue of conflicting jury findings, but he failed to do so. Thus, the court held that Lake waived any error. OPINION:Griffith, J.; Worthen, C.J., and Griffith and Hoyle, 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?

 
 

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