Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marshall v. Crown Asset Management, LLC

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg

December 14, 2017

JAMIE MARSHALL, Appellant,
v.
CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellee.

         On appeal from the 156th District Court of Aransas County, Texas.

          Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Hinojosa

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ROGELIO VALDEZ, CHIEF JUSTICE

         Appellee Crown Asset Management, LLC (Crown) sued appellant Jamie Marshall for breach of contract and stated account to recover $5, 820.82 in unpaid credit card debt.[1]The lawsuit was filed in February 2016. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for Crown and rejected Marshall's defense under the statute of limitations. Marshall prosecutes this appeal without a reporter's record of the bench trial. By one issue, Marshall contends that the trial court's judgment should be reversed because Crown's suit was barred by the four-year statute of limitations. We affirm.

         I. Standard of Review

         Marshall asserted limitations as a defense to Crown's lawsuit, so she had the burden to prove it at trial. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 94; Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex. 1988). To reverse the trial court's judgment based on limitations, Marshall shoulders the burden on appeal to demonstrate that the evidence conclusively established her limitations defense as a matter of law. See Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. 2001).

         II. Applicable Law

         Recovery under a breach-of-contract claim requires proof of four elements: "(1) the existence of a valid contract; (2) performance or tendered performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach of the contract by the defendant; and (4) damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the breach." Eaves v. Unifund CCR Partners, 301 S.W.3d 402, 407 (Tex. App.- El Paso 2009, no pet.).

         The elements of a claim for stated account include: "(1) transactions between the parties give rise to indebtedness of one to the other; (2) an agreement, express or implied, between the parties fixes an amount due, and (3) the one to be charged makes a promise, express or implied, to pay the indebtedness." Id. at 407.[2]

         Crown's claims for breach of contract and stated account are subject to a four-year statute of limitations, so Crown was required to bring these claims "not later than four years after the day the [claims] accrue[d]." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.004(a)(3), (c) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Generally, a claim is said to "accrue" when facts come into existence that authorize the claimant to seek a judicial remedy. See Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 221 (Tex. 2003). However, Texas law defines the accrual date for a claim on an open or stated account with more precision than the general rule-specifically, a claim on an open or stated account accrues "on the day that the dealings in which the parties were interested together cease." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.004(c).

         III. Analysis

         Crown filed suit in February 2016. Thus, in order to prevail on her limitations defense as to Crown's claims for breach of contract and stated account, Marshall shouldered the burden to prove that those claims accrued before February 2012-i.e., more than four years before suit was filed. Although Marshall does not provide us with a reporter's record of the evidence presented at the bench trial, we do have written findings and conclusions entered by the trial court after the bench trial. We rely on these findings to determine whether, as Marshall asserts, the trial court erred in rejecting her limitations defense. The relevant findings are set out as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. [Marshall] applied for, and was issued, the Visa credit card that was in the Original ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.