The Texas Court of Appeals ruled on September 23, 2026, in the case of Moreno Construction Co., Inc. v. Robin Baker (Docket No. 04-25-00293-CV). The court addressed a dispute between a construction company and a homeowner over alleged contract breaches and damages. The ruling affects both parties, particularly impacting the amount of attorney's fees awarded to Baker, which the court has sent back to the lower court for further consideration.
The case began when Moreno Construction Co. filed a lawsuit against Robin Baker, claiming she failed to pay the full contract amount for a home they built for her. Baker countered with claims that the construction was riddled with defects and that Moreno failed to deliver the home as promised. After a jury trial in 2024, the court awarded Baker $110,000 in damages and $150,000 in attorney's fees. However, both parties appealed aspects of the trial court's decision, leading to this ruling.
Moreno Construction argued that the evidence did not support the jury's award of compensatory damages, while Baker contended that the court should have awarded her the full amount of attorney's fees she sought, which was $325,991.01. The trial court had reduced this amount significantly, which prompted Baker's cross-appeal.
The court's opinion, delivered by Justice Lori I. Valenzuela and joined by Justices Adrian A. Spears II and H. Todd McCray, affirmed the jury's award of compensatory damages to Baker. The court found that the evidence supported the jury's conclusion that Moreno failed to comply with the construction contract and that this failure caused damage to Baker. The court stated, "We conclude, as the trial court did below, that the general rule Moreno asks us to pull from Miga and its progeny does not apply to these facts." This indicates that the court did not agree with Moreno's argument that damages should be calculated at the time of breach rather than at the time of trial.
However, the court reversed the trial court's award of attorney's fees and remanded the issue for further proceedings. The court noted that Baker had not conclusively established the reasonableness and necessity of the full attorney's fees she sought. The opinion highlighted that while Baker's attorney presented evidence of incurred fees, the trial court found sufficient grounds to reduce the requested amount. The court stated, "The record contains more than a scintilla of evidence upon which the trial court could have found that Baker did not establish the reasonableness and necessity of the full amount of attorney’s fees she requested." This suggests that the court believed there were valid reasons for the reduction but did not agree with the extent of the reduction.
The ruling has significant implications for both parties moving forward. Baker will have the opportunity to present further evidence regarding her attorney's fees in the lower court, which could potentially increase the amount she receives. For Moreno Construction, the ruling affirms their liability and the damages awarded to Baker, which could impact their financial standing and reputation in the construction industry.
As for what’s next, the case will return to the lower court for a reevaluation of Baker's attorney's fees. Both parties may have the option to appeal this latest ruling, but it remains unclear if they will pursue further legal action. The case highlights the complexities of contract disputes in the construction industry and the importance of clear documentation and evidence in legal proceedings.