Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
D&M Creative Custom Builders sued Paul and Linda Pearce for quantum meruit, alleging that the homeowners requested, approved, and accepted upgrades and additions beyond the scope and financing of their home-construction contract but failed to pay for that work.
Before jury selection, the trial court sustained the Pearces’ objection under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, concluding that D&M had inadequately disclosed its experts and damages model. The court further determined that expert testimony was required to establish reasonable damages, denied D&M’s requested continuance, dismissed the jury, and entered a final take-nothing judgment. It later denied D&M’s motion for reconsideration and new trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by using a Rule 193.6 evidentiary objection to enter a dispositive final judgment when no motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion had been filed. Rule 193.6 may exclude evidence that was not timely disclosed, but it does not authorize a court to eliminate a party’s legal theories or summarily resolve the case.
A pretrial challenge asserting that D&M lacked sufficient damages evidence should have been raised through a dispositive motion such as a no-evidence motion for summary judgment. Alternatively, a directed verdict might have been appropriate after D&M presented its case and failed to meet its burden. Because neither occurred, the appellate court sustained D&M’s first issue, declined to address its remaining issues, reversed the judgment, and remanded the case.
Key Takeaways
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6 authorizes exclusion of undisclosed evidence, not entry of a dispositive judgment eliminating a claim.
- A pretrial attack on the sufficiency of damages evidence generally requires a properly filed dispositive motion with the applicable procedural safeguards.
- A trial court may consider a directed verdict after the claimant rests, but it may not render a sua sponte summary judgment before trial when no party has moved for that relief.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the distinction between an evidentiary ruling and a merits disposition. Even when exclusion of expert or damages evidence could seriously impair a claim, the trial court must use an authorized procedural mechanism before entering judgment against the claimant.
The ruling also protects notice and an opportunity to respond when a party’s case faces dismissal for an alleged failure of proof. The court did not decide whether expert testimony was required or whether D&M disclosed a valid damages model; it reversed solely because the trial court entered a dispositive judgment without a dispositive motion.