TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Koontz v. U. S. Home Corp.

Paul E. KOONTZ v. U. S. HOME CORPORATION

Koontz v. U. S. Home Corp., 620 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. App. 1981)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
August 5, 1981
Docket
No. A2674
Judges
Junell
Citations
620 S.W.2d 846

Opinion of the Court — Junell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

JUNELL, Justice.

This is an appeal from a take-nothing judgment rendered following a non-jury trial of a suit brought by three sub-contractors on a construction project against U.S. Home Corporation, the property owner, and its surety on a bond for release of liens. We affirm.

The appellants attempted to perfect liens under the provisions of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 5452, et seq. (Vernon Supp.1980). Appellants concede that they did not give the notices called for by article 5469, which requires the owner to retain 10% of the contract price for 30 days after completion of the work. The rights of appellants in this case are controlled by that part of article 5463 which provides that the owner shall be required to pay, and his property shall be liable for, only money that he paid to the contractor after he received written notice of the unpaid balances due the subcontractors, as required under article 5453.

In the trial of this case the burden was on the plaintiffs/subcontractors to prove that at the time they gave written notice of their claims to the property owner there were, in the hands of such owner, funds owed to the original contractor. Fullenwider v. Longmoor, 73 Tex. 480 , 11 S.W. 500 (1889); Leeper-Curd Lumber Co. v. Barbuzza, 216 S.W. 216 (Tex.Civ.App.— Ft. Worth 1919, writ dism’d.); Carson v. Gilchrist, 136 S.W. 529 (Tex.Civ.App. 1911, no writ); 38 Tex.Jur.2d Mechanics’ Liens § 91 (1962).

The record shows that appellants failed to carry their burden of proof; therefore, the trial court did not err in denying them recovery.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1988: 11990: 119882026peak 1988 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ambassador Development Corp. v. Valdez791 S.W.2d 612 (Tex. App. 1990)
  2. Weaver v. King Ready Mix Concrete, Inc.750 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. App. 1988)

Most recent

  1. Ambassador Development Corp. v. Valdez791 S.W.2d 612 (Tex. App. 1990)
  2. Weaver v. King Ready Mix Concrete, Inc.750 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. App. 1988)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
A. E. Fullenwider & Co. v. Longmoor, 11 S.W. 500 (Tex. 1889) 36
Carson v. Gilchrist, 136 S.W. 529 (Tex. App. 1911) 2
Leeper-Curd Lumber Co. v. Barbuzza, 216 S.W. 216 (Tex. App. 1919) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list