Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marcus Lesure Travis, Sr., doing business as Sip’s Daiquiris N More, leased commercial property from Guerra & Stubbs Properties and related parties in June 2021 for use as a restaurant. After water incursions in June and August 2022 and January 2023, Travis alleged that the premises also had mold, wood-destroying insects, and structural damage that interfered with his use of the property. The landlord disputed those allegations and asserted that Travis stopped paying rent, resulting in a lockout.
Travis sued for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and breach of the implied warranty of suitability. The landlord moved for both traditional and no-evidence summary judgment, supporting its motions with an unsworn declaration stating that it lacked knowledge of the alleged defects and that Travis had denied access for requested inspections and repairs. The trial court granted both motions and entered final judgment for the landlord.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed. Reading Travis’s pro se brief liberally, the court treated his sole appellate complaint as asserting that the landlord concealed preexisting plumbing failures, mold, termites, and rot. But Travis supplied no accurate record citations to evidence submitted with his summary-judgment responses and did not explain how any such evidence created a genuine issue of material fact in light of the landlord’s evidence that it lacked knowledge of the alleged conditions.
Assuming without deciding that the landlord’s knowledge concerned an element of Travis’s fraudulent-inducement, DTPA, and implied-warranty claims, the court held that Travis failed to raise a genuine fact issue and that traditional summary judgment was proper. Travis raised no appellate argument concerning his breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims, so any error concerning summary judgment on those claims was waived.
Key Takeaways
- A summary-judgment appellant must accurately cite the record and explain how the cited evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact.
- Pro se litigants receive a liberal reading of their filings but remain subject to the same procedural and briefing requirements as represented parties.
- Claims not challenged in the appellant’s brief cannot support reversal of the judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that allegations of concealed defects in commercial premises will not defeat traditional summary judgment without properly identified evidence connecting the landlord to knowledge of those conditions. It also illustrates the appellate consequences of defective record citations and failure to challenge every ground necessary to sustain a final judgment.