The following are summaries of selected civil opinions issued by the Third Court of Appeals during March 2025. The summaries are an overview; please review the entire opinion. Subsequent histories are current as of April 9, 2025.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Court grants mandamus relief from denial of motion for continuance.
In re Capital Iron Works, No. 03-25-00206-CV (Tex. App.—Austin March 21, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Condo association sued builder for construction defects. Builder added Iron Works as a third-party defendant. The trial court granted Iron Works a partial summary judgment dismissing all but one of builder’s claims. After the discovery period ended, the trial court reinstated a previously-dismissed contribution claim. Because Iron Works had no opportunity to conduct discovery on the contribution claim, it sought a continuance of the trial setting. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals observed that Rule 190.5 requires time for additional discovery with amended pleadings made after the discovery period ends. Reinstating the contribution claim served as an amended pleading. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for continuance. The court granted mandamus relief.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Court holds interim partition order is appealable.
Jackson v. Jackson, No. 03-25-00017-CV (Tex. App.—Austin March 21, 2025, no pet. h.).
In the underlying partition suit, Dauphen counterclaimed for declaratory relief and reimbursement. The trial court ordered partition of the real estate according to the parties’ percentage interests and appointed commissioners to effectuate the partition. The trial court later signed an “Interim Judgment” that confirmed the commissioners’ report and awarded each party title to one tract. Although the Interim Judgment stated that it was not a final judgment, Dauphen appealed. The court of appeals noted that partition lawsuits involve two or more final, appealable orders: one that orders partition and one that awards title. Because both orders serve as the basis for later decisions, both are appealable to avoid irreparable injury to the parties and the public at large. That there were other issues to litigate did not bar appellate review. The court abated the appeal and remanded.
TCPA: Court reverses dismissal of defamation per se claim involving a social media post.
Wang v. Guo, No. 03-23-00244-CV (Tex. App.—Austin March 28, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
After using Wang’s HVAC repair services, Guo posted on Yelp that Wang charged him for a new motor but installed a used motor on his A/C unit. Wang filed suit asserting libel claims. The trial court granted Guo’s TCPA motion to dismiss and awarded him attorney’s fees and sanctions. The court of appeals reversed. Wang submitted an invoice for a new motor as evidence that Guo’s Yelp statement was false. Guo’s only evidence to rebut the invoice was his assertion that since the motor failed within a year it must have been used. The post accused Wang of fraud and impugned his abilities as a HVAC technician. Thus, the court concluded Wang established a prima facie case of defamation per se that Guo failed to rebut. The court reversed in part and remanded.
ATTORNEY’S FEES: Court reverses failure to award fees in a commercial lease dispute.
202 N LBJ Venture Group, LP v. Kolaj, No. 03-24-00025-CV (Tex. App.—Austin March 6, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
After Kolaj breached a commercial lease by nonpayment, LBJ terminated Kolaj’s possession but not the lease and sued. The trial court granted LBJ’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability and after a bench trial awarded LBJ approximately 10% of the requested damages and no attorney’s fees. The court of appeals affirmed the damages award but reversed the failure to award attorney’s fees. The lease provided that in any action for breach of lease, the court shall award fees and costs. Because LBJ sought more than $900k in damages but was awarded only $96k, the court refused to render judgment on LBJ’s requested fees of $67k. According to the court, given the amount of the damages award, the amount of a reasonable fee should be left to the trier of fact. The court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded attorney’s fees.