AFFIRM; Opinion Filed May 10, 2022
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-01013-CV
CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM, Appellant
V.
DARLA COMPTON, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-05792-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Molberg, and Pedersen, III
Opinion by Justice Schenck
Christopher Graham appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Darla
Compton. In three issues, he challenges the evidence to support her quantum meruit
claim, the award of attorney’s fees, and the trial court’s failure to grant summary
judgment in Graham’s favor. We affirm. Because all issues are settled in law, we
issue this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
BACKGROUND
Compton filed suit in a justice of the peace court against Graham, and entities
that are not part of this appeal, alleging theft of services, specifically private process
service of subpoenas, motions, notices, and enforcement orders, which she
performed for Graham. Her petition included a request for judgment for a sum of
money against Graham “plus reasonable attorney fees,” interest, and court costs.
She later filed an amendment to her petition, asserting a claim for quantum meruit,
seeking the sum of $7,018.37. The justice of the peace granted judgment in favor of
Compton, awarding her $5,833.80 in damages, interest, and court costs of $146.00.
Graham appealed the judgment of the justice of the peace to the county court
at law. He then filed no-evidence and traditional motions for summary judgment.
Compton responded. The record does not contain any order granting or denying the
motions. The case proceeded to a bench trial after which the trial court signed a final
judgment in favor of Compton and against Graham on Compton’s quantum meruit
claim and awarded $1,864.92 in actual damages, $4,360.00 in reasonable and
necessary attorney’s fees, and contingent fees for an appeal to this Court ($7,500.00),
a petition of review to the supreme court ($10,000.00), and review, if granted, by the
supreme court ($5,000.00). This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. Legally Sufficient Evidence Supported the Reasonable Value of Services
Performed
In his first issue, Graham asserts Compton failed to produce any evidence to
support an element of her claim for quantum meruit. He argues she failed to produce
evidence regarding the reasonable value of the services she performed.
The trial court did not enter findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Am.
Exp. Centurion Bank v. Minckler, 345 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011,
–2–
no pet.). When a trial court does not make separate findings of fact or conclusions
of law, it is implied that the trial court made all fact findings necessary to support its
judgment. See id. However, when, as in this case, the appellate record includes the
reporter’s and clerk’s records, the trial court’s implied fact findings are not
conclusive and may be challenged for legal sufficiency. See id. We must affirm the
trial court’s judgment if it can be upheld on any legal theory that finds support in the
evidence. See id.
We review the trial court’s implied findings of fact for sufficiency of the
evidence by the same standards that are applied in reviewing evidence supporting a
jury’s verdict. See id. In determining whether legally sufficient evidence supports
the finding, we consider evidence favorable to the finding if a reasonable fact finder
could consider it, and disregard evidence contrary to the finding unless a reasonable
fact finder could not disregard it. See id. If the evidence at trial would enable
reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions, then the fact finder
must be allowed to do so. See id. We may not substitute our judgment for that of
the fact finder, so long as the evidence falls within this zone of reasonable
disagreement. See id. at 207–08. Although we must consider the evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict, and indulge every reasonable inference that
would support it, if the evidence allows only one inference, neither the fact finder
nor the reviewing court may disregard it. See id. at 208.
–3–
Quantum meruit is an equitable theory of recovery which is based on an
implied agreement to pay for benefits received. See LTS Grp., Inc. v. Woodcrest
Capital, L.L.C., 222 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.). To recover
under the doctrine of quantum meruit, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) valuable
services or materials were furnished; (2) to the party sought to be charged; (3) which
were accepted by the party sought to be charged; and (4) under such circumstances
as reasonably notified the recipient that the plaintiff, in performing, expected to be
paid by the recipient. See id. A party must introduce evidence on the correct
measure of damages to recover on quantum meruit, which is the reasonable value of
work performed and the materials furnished. See id. at 920–21. According to
Graham, Compton failed to produce evidence regarding the reasonableness of the
services she performed or their reasonable value.
Compton produced evidence to support the reasonable value of her services.
The record includes a document listing Compton’s usual rates for services; invoices
and emails from Compton to Graham supporting costs she paid to other process
servers for some of the services and for expenses like witness fees and parking; and
Compton’s testimony regarding Graham’s agreement to hire her for her services
after first reviewing her quoted prices. We conclude this evidence is legally
sufficient to support the reasonable value of the work performed. See LTS Grp., 222
S.W.3d at 920–21; see, e.g., PMC Chase, LLP v. Branch Structural Sols., Inc.,
No. 05-18-01383-CV, 2020 WL 467791, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 28, 2020,
–4–
pet. denied) (mem. op.) (concluding testimony from plaintiff’s president regarding
size of crew, cost per worker, and approximate hours his crew worked legally and
factually sufficient to support quantum meruit damages awarded). Accordingly, we
overrule Graham’s first issue.
II. Attorney’s Fees Pleaded and Awarded
In his second issue, Graham urges the award of attorney’s fees is improper
because Compton did not plead or otherwise request recovery of her attorney’s fees.
The determination of whether attorney’s fees are available in a particular case
is a question of law, which we review de novo. See Rhodes v. Kelly, No. 05-16-
00888-CV, 2017 WL 2774452, at *13 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 27, 2017, pet.
denied) (mem. op.) (citing Cent. Forest S/C Partners, Ltd. v. Mundo–Mundo, Inc.,
184 S.W.3d 296, 299 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2005, no pet.)). Absent a mandatory statute,
a trial court’s jurisdiction to render a judgment for attorney’s fees must be invoked
by pleadings, and a judgment not supported by pleadings requesting an award of
attorney’s fees is a nullity. See id. (citing Alan Reuber Chevrolet, Inc. v. Grady
Chevrolet, Ltd., 287 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.).
Here, Compton’s petition included a request for judgment for a sum of money
against Graham “plus reasonable attorney fees,” interest, and court costs. Graham
argues her later amended petition did not include such a request. However, she did
not file an amended petition, but instead an “amendment to original small claims
petition,” which is the equivalent to a supplementation. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 69
–5–
(“Supplemental Petition or Answer”). It is the fair substance of a pleading—and not
its denomination that governs its effect, and we conclude the fair substance of the
pleading here was to supplement Compton’s petition. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 71; 2
MCDONALD’S TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE § 10:4 (1992). In her supplemental petition,
Compton claimed damages “excluding (Attorney Fees if needed).” Moreover, the
parties fully litigated the issue to the bench below.
Because Compton did not specify a legal basis for fee recovery, she may
recover her fees on any available legal basis. See Granbury Hosp., Inc. v. State,
No. 05-16-01509-CV, 2018 WL 3968498, at *7 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 20, 2018,
pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing Smith v. Deneve, 285 S.W.3d 904, 916–17 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.)). Under section 38.001 of the civil practice and
remedies code, Compton was permitted to recover reasonable attorney’s fees from
Graham. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(b)(1) (allowing for
recovery of attorney’s fees for claims for rendered services). Accordingly, we
overrule Graham’s second issue.
III. Graham Waived Complaint Regarding Failure to Grant Summary
Judgment
In his third issue, Graham argues this Court should order the trial court to
grant his first motion for summary judgment, urging mandamus is appropriate when
the trial court refuses to rule on a timely submitted motion for summary judgment.
The record reflects Graham filed his motion for summary judgment and that the trial
court conducted a hearing on the motion, but there is no record of that hearing here.
–6–
See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(a)(4) (appellate courts presume partial reporter’s record
designated by parties constitutes entire record). Similarly, there is no record of
Graham’s request for the trial court to rule on his motion for summary judgment.
Generally, a party is not entitled to mandamus relief without a predicate
request to the trial judge and a denial of that request. See In re Greyhound Lines,
Inc., No. 05-14-01164-CV, 2014 WL 5474787, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 29,
2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex.
1999) (orig. proceeding); Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 556
(Tex.1990) (orig. proceeding)). Absent a showing that the issue was presented to
the trial court, it is not preserved for our review. See id.; see also TEX. R. APP. P.
33.1(a)(2) (requiring ruling on motion to preserve complaint for appellate review).
Accordingly, we overrule Graham’s third issue.
CONCLUSION
We affirm.
/David J. Schenck/
DAVID J. SCHENCK
JUSTICE
201013F.P05
–7–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM, On Appeal from the County Court at
Appellant Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-05792-
No. 05-20-01013-CV V. C.
Opinion delivered by Justice
DARLA COMPTON, Appellee Schenck. Justices Molberg and
Pedersen, III participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee DARLA COMPTON recover her costs of this
appeal from appellant CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM.
Judgment entered this 10th day of May 2022.
–8–