Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Andres Lozano, Individually and D/B/A Sandia Depot v. Susan Yeary and Ray Yeary, Individually and D/B/A Sky Farms
Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-11-00136-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 23, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Andres Lozano, owner of Sandia Depot, appealed a breach of contract case against Susan and Ray Yeary, owners of Sky Farms, after a jury ruled in favor of the Yearys. Lozano raised two main issues: the lack of evidence for his individual liability and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the damages awarded. The agreement between Lozano and Yeary, established verbally in 2003, involved Sandia Depot providing funds and seeds for growing watermelons, with profits split evenly after expenses were deducted. A dispute arose in 2008 regarding accounting for the proceeds from the watermelon harvest, leading Lozano to file a lawsuit in June 2009 seeking payment from Yeary. Yeary counterclaimed, alleging Lozano failed to account properly for the profits from 2003 to 2008 and sought attorney's fees. Following a two-day trial, the jury found in favor of Yeary, resulting in a judgment against Lozano for $240,996.57, plus interest. Lozano's motion for a new trial was denied, prompting this appeal. The court's review standard emphasizes the need for sufficient evidence to support jury findings, allowing for reasonable inferences in favor of the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. Lozano asserts that there was insufficient evidence to establish his individual liability, arguing that the judgment should have been directed at his company, Sandia Depot. He claims that his attorney improperly filed the suit against him personally instead of the company, despite his reliance on legal counsel. However, it was Lozano who initiated the lawsuit in his individual capacity, and he only contested this after the trial concluded. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 28, individuals conducting business under an assumed name can sue or be sued in that name. Evidence from the trial indicated that Lozano conducted business as an individual, as he answered questions regarding his personal involvement in the business transactions related to watermelon sales. The court found sufficient evidence to support the judgment against Lozano personally, rejecting his reliance on the Lambert case, which involved different circumstances. In his second argument, Lozano challenged the sufficiency of the damages awarded, totaling $240,996.57, plus interest. The jury considered conflicting testimonies from Lozano and Yeary about sales and advance payments between 2003 and 2008, along with supporting documentary evidence. The court affirmed the jury's role as the sole judge of witness credibility and found no basis to overturn the verdict, as it was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Consequently, both of Lozano's issues were overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.