Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Victoria County,
Justices Contreras, Benavides and Longoria.
L. LONGORIA Justice.
AT&T Yellow Pages, Inc. (Yellow Pages) brought suit
against appellant Patrick Janis to recover the unpaid balance
from the parties' advertising contracts. The trial court
found Patrick Janis jointly and severally liable with Michael
Bryant on both contracts. On appeal, Janis argues
that the trial court erred in finding him personally liable
on both advertising contracts. We affirm.
and Bryant are officers and shareholders of Calhoun Plumbing,
Inc. d/b/a Mr. Rooter Plumbing. On February 21, 2008, Janis
signed a contract with Yellow Pages to run advertising for
Mr. Rooter Plumbing in the Victoria County Yellow Pages. On
June 3, 2009, Bryant entered into another contract with
Yellow Pages for advertising for Mr. Rooter Plumbing in the
Victoria County Yellow Pages. After the advertising was
published, Mr. Rooter Plumbing failed to make the necessary
payments as required under the contracts. On January 26,
2011, Yellow Pages brought suit against Janis and Bryant
individually to recover the unpaid balance, interest on the
unpaid balance, and reasonable attorney's fees.
April 19, 2016, the case was tried before the trial court.
The trial court held that Janis was jointly and severally
liable with Bryant on both contracts. The trial court entered
judgment in favor of Yellow Pages for $20, 848.71, not
including the prejudgment interest on the unpaid debt and $7,
500 for attorney's fees, subject to post-judgment
interest. Janis and Bryant requested the trial court to enter
written findings of fact and conclusions of law. See
Tex. R. Civ. P. 296. However, the trial court did
not submit any findings, and Janis did not file a past due
notice for the findings. See id. R. 297. This appeal
issue, Janis argues that the trial court erred in finding him
personally liable on both contracts.
Standard of Review and Applicable Law
construction of an unambiguous contract is a question of law,
which we review de novo." Wright Group
Architects-Planners, P.L.L.C. v. Pierce, 343 S.W.3d 196,
200 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.). Texas law does not
presume agency. Id. To establish the affirmative
defense of agency, a party must prove that he disclosed: (1)
that he is acting in a representative capacity; and (2) the
identity of the principal. Id.
the failure to file a past due notice for requested findings
of fact and conclusions of law constitutes a waiver of the
right to complain about the trial court's failure to file
findings. See Sonnier v. Sonnier, 331 S.W.3d 211,
214 (Tex. App.- Beaumont 2011, no pet.). In that situation,
when the record contains no findings of fact and conclusions
of law, courts imply all necessary findings to support the