HOUSTON – The 14th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part, remanded in part and affirmed in part a judgment by the 190th District Court in Harris County after concluding the trial court should not have submitted any question inquiring into the enforceability of the oral condition between Ali Mokaram and Osama Abdullatif over a commercial real estate deal.
According to the court opinion, Mokaram and Abdullatif were both investors in the Beal Bank Building located at 2500 West Loop South in Houston. According to an agreement between the two, they were equal limited partners in the deal, together forming ML Partnership.
ML Partnership filed this lawsuit against Ali Choudhri, who leased space in the building, after their relationship soured. The suit sought a temporary restraining order, a temporary injunction and a permanent injunction "to prevent these defendants from demolishing or otherwise remodeling any part of the Beal Bank Building."
During the trial, the jury was given a specific question to answer, which ML Partnership argued the court erred in asking. The question read: "Did Mokaram and Choudhri agree that the 2010 assignment was not effective and that Mokaram would return the $750,000 paid by Choudhri?"
By answering affirmatively, the jury found Mokaram's securities-fraud claim against Choudhri was not substantial. However, the trial court disregarded this answer in its opinion.
The court's majority opinion concluded that the trial court did not err in "disregarding the jury’s finding in response to Question 3," but did err in the declaratory relief.
In dissent, Judge Ken Wise noted that Question 3 was central to Mokaram's case. The question "attempted to request a finding to support Mokaram’s request for declaratory relief but did so defectively."
Wise concluded the trial court's erring in disregarding Question 3 warranted a remand for a new trial.
Cheif Justice Kem Frost delivered the majority opinion on March 30 with Judge Brett Busby concurring.