Houston, TX
Real estate Lawyer at Houston, TX
Practice Areas: Real Estate, Construction & Development, Business
OUTCOME: Judgment totaling $1,513,181.00
The Plaintiff brought claims for Fraud / Fraudulent Inducement, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, DTPA violations, Breach of Contract, and Civil Theft.
OUTCOME: The jury found in favor of Remanente Pentecostal de Jesus Cristo on the negligent claim and awarded damages against Vidal Revelo.
It was a negligence case involving a construction project. The jury found in favor of Remanente Pentecostal de Jesus Cristo on the negligent claim and awarded damages against Vidal Revelo.
OUTCOME: Obtained Final Judgment after bench trial in favor of client, defeating all claims and winning on counter-claims of approximately $166,000 in a Breach of Contract case against defaulting party on note.
On August 31, 2007, Plaintiff, Vannara Sam Yem (“Plaintiff”) executed a Letter of Interest to Defendants expressing her desire to purchase certain assets of Square Donuts in Houston, Texas for a total ... price of $390,000.00. See Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order. Under the intended terms of the Letter of Interest, Plaintiff agreed to make a down payment of $180,000.00 upon closing and execute a no-interest promissory note for the remaining $200,000.00 to be paid over the next 40 months. On September 7, 2007, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement of essentially the exact terms outlined in the Letter of Interest. Plaintiff did not make a single payment on the promissory note. Square Donuts counter-sued for breach of the Purchase and Sales Agreement.
OUTCOME: Plaintiff filed a non-suit dismissing case.
Attorney represented defendants that were sued in wrongful death premises liability case.
OUTCOME: Successful Defense at trial; Plaintiff awarded nothing.
These are the facts described in CAP’s Tile’s Counter-claim made subject to the dispute between the parties. CAP’s Tile alleged these facts. The Plaintiff disputed those facts that were not in Plaintif ... f’s favor and the Judge decided which facts held true. The poster of this information is not offering this information for accuracy but fir reference purposes since filed of public record in CAP’s Tile’s counter-claim. Counter-Plaintiff, C.A.P.’S Tile (hereinafter “CAP”) contracted with Charles Walker and Dorothea Walker (collectively referred to as “Walker”) to provide services and materials to Walker and at 26231 Midnight Watch, San Antonio, Texas 78260. CAP’s Tile was sued for construction work and defended itself. It counter-claimed. CAP’s Tile was successful on its defenses. CAP’S Tile’s legal theories and, in general, the claimed factual bases of its claims or defenses were as follows: Defendant has several affirmative defenses including the defense that Plaintiffs (“Walker” collectively) failed to (1) mitigate damages; (2) Accord and Satisfaction; (3) and to the extent the Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, it should be dismissed; and (4) Plaintiffs failed to provide notice pursuant to § 27.004 of the Texas Property Code thus preventing CAP the reasonable opportunity to inspect and have inspected the property subject to the complaint in order to determine the nature and cause of any alleged defect and the nature and extent of repairs necessary to remedy the alleged defects. Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable and necessary attorney feeson the authority of §38.001 et. seq. of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code as this is a suit based on breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and quantum meruit. At the end of trial, no party was awarded any damages on their claims.
OUTCOME: Obtained Interlocutory Order Granting Special Appearance as to client, successfully obtaining dismissal for Client
The State of Texas brought Deceptive Trade Practices (DTPA) claims against Defendants.
OUTCOME: Case settled with proceeds to property owner.
Real Estate Condemnation Case
OUTCOME: Defendants' motion for summary judgment was Granted; Defendants were dismissed from case.
Plaintiff sued Defendants for an accounting on real estate development, claiming that Plaintiff was entitled to a share of the profits from the sale of the real property. Attorney successfully repre ... sented Defendants.
OUTCOME: Successful representation; Breach of Contract
Real Estate Breach of Contract
OUTCOME: Summary Judgment Granted; Defendants' favor
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
