Opinion
No. 04-03-00285-CV.
Delivered and Filed: October 8, 2003.
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 275768, Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Sitting: Alma L. LOPEZ, Chief Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice, Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
John D. Wennermark ("Wennermark") appeals a summary judgment granted in favor of Bexar County. Wennermark contends that summary judgment was improperly granted because Bexar County did not present any evidence to support the summary judgment and Wennermark is not liable for fees incurred on behalf of his clients. We reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Background
Bexar County filed an original petition against Wennermark alleging claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit. In its petition, Bexar County alleges that Wennermark entered into an oral contract with Bexar County agreeing to pay for Bexar County's services in executing several Writs of Execution and Capias. In the alternative, Bexar County alleges that it is entitled to recover under the doctrine of quantum meruit because it provided valuable services to Wennermark under notice that Bexar County expected to be paid for its services. Bexar County further alleges that the total amount owed for its services is $900.00.
Wennermark filed an answer containing a general denial, requesting that Bexar County be required to prove all of its allegations, and also asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Bexar County filed a motion for summary judgment but did not attach any evidence to its motion. In its motion, Bexar County contends that the facts are undisputed and that a total fee of $900.00 had not been paid by Wennermark. Wennermark filed a response, noting that Bexar County failed to attach affidavits or other evidence to support its claims. The trial court granted the summary judgment.
Discussion
Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Texas Commerce Bank, N.A. v. Grizzle, 96 S.W.3d 240, 252 (Tex. 2002). In reviewing a traditional motion for summary judgment, the reviewing court must resolve every doubt and indulge every reasonable inference in the nonmovant's favor. Id. All evidence favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true. Id.
Because Wennermark filed a general denial, Bexar County was required to prove every fact essential to its case as a matter of law because the general denial joined issue on all material facts asserted by Bexar County in its petition. Shell Chemical Co. v. Lamb, 493 S.W.2d 742, 744 (Tex. 1973). One of the facts essential to Bexar County's breach of contract claim was the amount of damages to which it was entitled, and in relation to its quantum meruit claim, Bexar County was required to prove that Bexar County provided valuable services to Wennermark. See Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi, 832 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Tex. 1992) (listing rendition of valuable services to party sought to be charged as elements of quantum meruit); Southwell v. University of Incarnate Word, 974 S.W.2d 351, 354-55 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, pet. denied) (listing damages resulting from breach as element of breach of contract claim). Although Bexar County asserts in its motion that a total fee of $900.00 has not been paid by Wennermark for Bexar County's services, Bexar County presented no summary judgment proof to support this assertion. Given Wennermark's general denial, the facts are not "undisputed" despite Bexar County's assertion to the contrary. Finally, although Bexar County lists the case numbers and the fees for the services Bexar County alleges it provided to Wennermark in each cause, pleadings do not qualify as competent summary judgment proof. Hidalgo v. Surety Sav. Loan Ass' n, 462 S.W.2d 540, 544 (Tex. 1971); Smith v. Hennessey Assocs., Inc., 103 S.W.3d 567, 570 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.).
Because Bexar County failed to prove that there are no disputed issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Bexar County. The trial court's judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.