Opinion
No. 05-03-01236-CV
Opinion Filed April 6, 2005.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. cc-02-12249-e.
Affirmed.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices MORRIS and WHITTINGTON.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DMT MacArthur, L.P. sued V-GPO, Inc., its tenant, for accrued rent and anticipatory breach of a five-year lease agreement. Following discovery, DMT moved for summary judgment seeking both actual and anticipated damages plus prejudgment interest. Despite notice, V-GPO did not respond or attend the hearing, and the trial judge granted DMT's motion.
On appeal, V-GPO does not dispute it breached the lease agreement by failing to pay rent but complains solely about the award of anticipated damages. Specifically, V-GPO complains DMT failed to establish its entitlement to the anticipated damages as a matter of law because the damages awarded exceed the amount pleaded, are not supported by the agreement, and are based on speculative evidence. We affirm. V-GPO first asserts the judgment does not conform to the pleadings because the damages awarded exceed the amount requested in DMT's petition. V-GPO's complaint stems from DMT's request in its petition for "all sums due under the terms of the lease at the time of trial" (emphasis added). V-GPO maintains this language limited DMT's damages to actual unpaid rent as of that date and, therefore, the award of anticipated damages is erroneous. We disagree.
"The judgment of the court shall conform to the pleadings [and] the nature of the case proved . . . and shall be so framed as to give the party all the relief to which he may be entitled either in law or equity." Tex. R. Civ. P. 301. In determining whether the judgment conforms with the pleadings, an appellate court should view the pleadings as a whole. Khalaf v. Williams, 814 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ) (op. on remand). A prayer for general relief will support any relief raised by the evidence so long as it is consistent with the allegations in the petition. Khalaf, 814 S.W.2d at 858.
Texas follows a "fair notice" pleading standard, which looks to whether the opposing party can ascertain from the pleadings the nature and basic issues of the controversy and what testimony will be relevant at trial. See Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887, 896 (Tex. 2000). A petition is sufficient if it gives fair and adequate notice of the facts upon which the pleader bases his claim. Horizon/CMS Healthcare, 34 S.W.3d at 897. In the absence of special exceptions, the petition should be construed liberally in favor of the pleader. Horizon/CMS Healthcare, 34 S.W.3d at 897.
V-GPO's brief acknowledges that DMT "reentered and repossessed the premises." Section 13.202 of the lease addresses repossession and reentry and provides for additional damages. DMT's petition not only sought to recover the rent and other agreed monthly charges ("[a]ll sums due under the terms of the lease at the time of trial, in an amount not less than $74,748.98 presently due, bearing post judgment interest at the rate of 10% per annum until paid"), it also sought "[s]uch other relief" to which it was entitled. On summary judgment, DMT presented evidence of additional damages under the lease. Under these circumstances, we conclude the judgment conforms with the pleadings in this case. We resolve the first issue against appellant.
V-GPO next asserts the award of anticipated damages is not supported by the lease agreement. In arguing this issue, V-GPO focuses its argument exclusively on the remedies available in the event of termination of the lease. It is undisputed, however, that DMT did not terminate the lease. Rather, DMT opted to repossess and relet the premises but continue the lease as provided by section 13.202 of the lease. V-GPO does not address the propriety of damages under section 13.202. Absent such an argument, we will not conclude the judgment is not supported by the lease agreement. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(h). We resolve the second issue against V-GPO.
Lastly, V-GPO maintains that the award of the anticipated damages was erroneous because the summary judgment evidence concerning those damages was speculative and could not support the judgment. V-GPO did not object to any of the summary judgment evidence. For purposes of this opinion, we will assume without deciding that this complaint is preserved in the absence of an objection. We have reviewed the property manager's affidavit upon which the amount of damages was based and conclude the evidence supporting the judgment is not speculative. We resolve the third issue against appellant.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.