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.

Luxurkey Management LLC v. Fuller

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District

June 27, 2019

LUXURKEY MANAGEMENT LLC, Appellant
v.
ELENI ANTONELLOS FULLER AND MARIA ANTONELLOS BASSA, Appellees

          On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2017-52683

          Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Landau, and Countiss.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          SARAH BETH LANDAU, JUSTICE

         The trial court granted sisters Eleni Antonellos Fuller and Maria Antonellos Bassa summary judgment to remove a mechanic's and materialman's lien placed on their real property by Luxurkey Management LLC after Luxurkey paid, without knowledge or consent of Fuller or Bassa, delinquent property taxes. The trial court declared, as a matter of law, that Luxurkey's lien was invalid and that Fuller should recover damages under the Fraudulent Lien Act. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 12.002. On appeal, Luxurkey does not challenge either of these rulings; instead, it contends the summary judgment must be set aside because the trial court erred in its disposition of Luxurkey's counterclaim for quantum meruit and affirmative defense of offset and reimbursement. We affirm.

         Background

         Eleni Antonellos Fuller and her sister, Maria Antonellos Bassa, own real property in Houston, Texas. The property has been in the family for more than 50 years and is Bassa's homestead. The family fell behind on the property taxes for tax years 2014 to 2016 and owed $78, 077.70 in delinquent taxes.

         Without the knowledge or consent of either Fuller or Bassa, Luxurkey Management LLC made a payment through the county tax assessor's website to cure the delinquency. Seven days later, Luxurkey demanded in writing that Fuller reimburse the company for $104, 074.62, which Luxurkey alleged included amounts for property taxes, a 25% redemption fee, and attorney's fees. Fuller did not respond, and Luxurkey mailed another demand letter. The second demand letter stated that it was "formal notice of [Luxurkey's] intent to file a mechanic's and materialman's lien against the real property and improvements." Luxurkey subsequently filed an "Affidavit of Luxurkey Management LLC Claiming a Mechanic's and Materialman's Lien" in the county real property records. Luxurkey filed the lien on the property to "secure payment" for $104, 074.62.

         Fuller then filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that Luxurkey's lien was null and void because it violated a certain provision of the Property Code as well as the Fraudulent Lien Act. Luxurkey answered and asserted counterclaims against both Fuller and Bassa to foreclose the lien or, alternatively, to recover under the doctrine of quantum meruit.

         After an adequate time for discovery had passed, Fuller moved for a traditional summary judgment on the argument that the evidence conclusively established the elements of her claims and conclusively negated at least one element of Luxurkey's counterclaims and (2) a no-evidence summary judgment on Luxurkey's counterclaims. The trial court granted these motions, declared that the lien was invalid, awarded Fuller $10, 000 under the Fraudulent Lien Act (as well as costs and attorney's fees), and dismissed Luxurkey's counterclaims. The summary-judgment order states that it "is final, disposes of all claims and all parties, and is appealable."

         Analysis

         Luxurkey argues the summary judgment must be set aside because the trial court "ignored" Luxurkey's quantum meruit counterclaim and failed to offset the damages awarded to Fuller by the amount of the lien. We address each of these arguments in turn.

         A. Summary judgments are reviewed de novo

         Luxurkey argues the summary judgment must be set aside as an abuse of the trial court's discretion. We, however, review a trial court's summary-judgment order de novo. See City of Richardson v. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co., 539 S.W.3d 252, 258 (Tex. 2018); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010).

         To prevail on a traditional motion for summary judgment, the movant has the burden to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the trial court should grant judgment as a matter of law. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c); Oncor Elec., 539 S.W.3d at 258-59; KPMG Peat Markwick v. Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999). In deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, we take the evidence favorable to the nonmovant as true. Nixon v. Mr. Property Mgmt. Co., Inc., 6 ...


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.