AUSTIN - The 14th Court of Appeals has denied damages that had been awarded by a lower court in a breach of contract case involving CarMax.
CarMax Business Services, a branch of CarMax Auto Superstores, filed the appeal against the County Civil Court Law No. 1 in Texas, which awarded the defendant, Branishia Annette Horton, damages of $7,375. The money was awarded to Horton to cover lawyer’s fees in the CarMax lawsuit.
In the appeal, CarMax made claims regarding the evidence that supported its case.
“CarMax argues that no legally or factually sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s implied findings in favor of appellee Branishia Horton’s affirmative defenses,” the court decision stated.
In its first two claims regarding the evidence, the appeals court ruled against the appellant. Yet, in a third claim that “the trial court’s award of 2 damages in Horton’s favor fails either as a matter of law or for insufficient evidence,” the appeal court agreed.
“Because Horton presented no evidence of compensable damages, we sustain CarMax’s third issue and modify the judgment to delete the award of damages. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified,” the Justices stated in their decision.
The case stems from a car agreement made in January 2013 between CarMax, Horton and a third party financier, Roadloans (also known as Santander). As part of the agreement, Horton was to pay Santander $456.16 for 72 months.
However, a car collision changed things.
Horton continued to pay on the account following the collision, which damaged the vehicle beyond repair, until she was informed by Santander that the loan had been paid off.
“On July 2, 2015, Santander assigned its interest in the financing agreement to CarMax. CarMax later sued Horton, seeking the balance on the financing agreement for Horton’s car, which was $16,193.37,” the court decision stated.
“After a bench trial, the trial court signed a judgment in Horton’s favor, awarding her $7,375 in damages and ordering that CarMax take nothing on its claim,” the court record stated.
“Because no findings of fact or conclusions of law appear in our record, we have no way of telling whether the trial court ruled as it did because CarMax did not prove its contract claim or because the court found that Horton proved one of her affirmative defenses,” the Justices said in their court decision.
“Because we conclude that legally and factually sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s implied finding of release in Horton’s favor, the court would not have reached Horton’s alternative counterclaim for breach of contract. Even assuming CarMax breached its contract with Horton, however, she cannot recover attorney’s fees as her sole damages,” the court decision stated.
“There being no evidence of any actual damages that Horton suffered as a result of CarMax’s alleged breach, she is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under a breach of contract theory.”
Justice Kevin Jewell issued the written decision on Aug. 21.