Sugar L. Prop. v. Becnel

16 Citing cases

  1. LMMM Hous. #41, Ltd. v. Santibanez

    NO. 01-16-00724-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 30, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    For an invitee to establish the liability of a premises owner, he must prove: "(1) a condition of the premises created an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee; (2) the owner knew or reasonably should have known of the condition; (3) the owner failed to exercise ordinary care to protect the invitee from danger; and (4) the owner's failure was a proximate cause of injury to the invitee." State Dep't of Highways & Public Transp. v. Payne, 838 S.W.2d 235, 237 (Tex. 1992); see also Henkel v. Norman, 441 S.W.3d 249, 251-52 (Tex. 2014); Sugar Land Props., Inc. v. Becnel, 26 S.W.3d 113, 118-19 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

  2. Alliedsignal v. Moran

    No. 13-00-00537-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 27, 2003)   Cited 2 times

    As a question of law for the court, we review the interpretation of a statute de novo. See Mitchell Energy Corp. v. Ashworth, 943 S.W.2d 436, 437 (Tex. 1997); Sugar Land Props. Inc. v. Becnel, 26 S.W.3d 113, 119 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.); Gordon v. Western Steel Co., 950 S.W.2d 743, 746 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997, pet. denied). 2. Statutory Construction

  3. Cagle v. Cuellar

    No. 04-20-00392-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 27, 2022)

    Payment is an affirmative defense and must be affirmatively pled. Tex.R.Civ.P. 95; Sugar Land Prop., Inc. v. Becnel, 26 S.W.3d 113, 121 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). If a party wishes to prove payment, he must affirmatively plead payment and file an accounting of the payments.

  4. Joyce Steel Erection, Ltd. v. Bonner

    506 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. App. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    The claimant's recovery from the jointly and severally liable defendant will be the amount remaining after these reductions. SeeDalworth Restoration, Inc. v. Rife–Marshall, 433 S.W.3d 773, 787 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 2014, pet. dism'd w.o.j.) (finding defendant wholly responsible for claimant's damages does not preclude application of settlement credit); Taveau v. Brenden, 174 S.W.3d 873, 881–82 (Tex.App.–Eastland 2005, pet. denied) (jointly and severally liable defendant liable for amount of damages after reduction for settlements); Sugar Land Props., Inc. v. Becnel, 26 S.W.3d 113, 119–21 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (same). Consider two fact scenarios.

  5. Wein v. Sherman

    NO. 03-10-00499-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 23, 2013)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that a sanction of $100,000 in attorney's fees was not excessive when the evidence showed a party has incurred $117,007.60 in reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and expenses

    Therefore, we review the district court's determination of the settlement credit de novo. See Galle, Inc. v. Pool, 262 S.W.3d 564, 571 n.3 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. denied); Sugar Land Props., Inc. v. Becnel, 26 S.W.3d 113, 119 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (applying de novo standard where resolution of issue required interpretation of two statutory provisions). Wein raises factual issues concerning his allegations that the settlement agreement between Sherman and Richards allocating amounts to actual and punitive damages was a sham and that there were no actual damages to support an award of punitive damages.

  6. Hyde-Way v. Davis

    No. 02-08-313-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 13, 2009)   Cited 5 times
    Holding plaintiff's testimony as to wages he lost as a result of tortious assault was legally sufficient to support lost-wages award in that amount

    A defendant must plead an affirmative defense in its answer, or it will waive the defense. See Bush, 122 S.W.3d at 862; Sugar Land Props., Inc. v. Becnel, 26 S.W.3d 113, 121 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (holding that under rule 95, the defendant waived its affirmative defense to reduce a verdict because of payment of medical expenses because it did not plead payment in its answer). Appellants' combined two-page answer at trial asserted only a general denial; it did not assert any affirmative defenses.

  7. Lofts v. Woodworks

    245 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2008)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that because "settlement credits and insurance payment exceeded the jury's damage award . . . [plaintiff] was not the prevailing party and was not entitled to recover its attorney's fees."

    But the Rule 95 cases cited by Lofts concern alleged payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff, not by third parties such as insurers. See, e.g., Sugar Land Properties, Inc. v. Becnel, 26 S.W.3d 113, 121 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). We thus reject Lofts' application of Rule 95 to Woodworks' pleading of settlement payments, credits, and offsets.

  8. Imperial Lofts v. Imperial WDWK

    No. 10-06-00126-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 7, 2007)

    But the Rule 95 cases cited by Lofts concern alleged payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff, not by third parties such as insurers. See, e.g., Sugar Land Properties, Inc. v. Becnel, 26 S.W.3d 113, 121 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). We thus reject Lofts' application of Rule 95 to Woodworks' pleading of settlement payments, credits, and offsets.

  9. Lofts v. Woodworks

    No. 10-06-00126-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 29, 2007)

    But the Rule 95 cases cited by Lofts concern alleged payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff, not by third parties such as insurers. See, e.g., Sugar Land Properties, Inc. v. Becnel, 26 S.W.3d 113, 121 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Also, by its terms, Rule 95 implies that it applies only to a payment made by or on behalf of a defendant.

  10. Capers v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A.

    No. 05-05-01230-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 25, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    Payment is an affirmative defense and must be affirmatively pleaded. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 94; Sugar Land Prop., Inc. v. Becnel, 26 S.W.3d 113, 121 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). If a party wishes to prove payment, he must affirmatively plead payment and