Shaneka Busby Baker v. Forrest Reggie Carr

Summary

The Texas Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed a take-nothing judgment against a tenant who asserted claims for breach of contract, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act violations, retaliation, discrimination, and related landlord-tenant issues. The court held that the evidence supported the trial court’s implied findings, including that the landlord’s nonrenewal was not retaliatory and that the tenant’s conduct excused the landlord’s failure to provide lawn care. The court also held that several issues were not preserved for appellate review.

Holdings

1. Carr's nonrenewal of the lease at the end of its stated term did not constitute retaliation under Texas Property Code section 92.332(b)(5), where Carr gave notice of nonrenewal before Baker sued for retaliation and Baker held over after the lease expired.
2. The evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's rejection of Baker's breach-of-contract claim because the factfinder could determine that Baker interfered with or prevented Carr's performance, excusing that performance.
3. Issues not raised in the trial court present nothing for appellate review, and a complaint of judicial bias must be made when the allegedly improper comment occurs to preserve error.
4. Baker could not obtain appellate relief on her security-deposit claim because, although the claim appeared in her justice-court complaint, she did not present supporting evidence in the county court and did not object when the trial court stated that she had not made the claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the implied finding rejecting Baker's statutory retaliation claim based on Carr's nonrenewal of the lease.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the implied finding rejecting Baker's breach-of-contract claim based on Carr's failure to provide lawn care and address a rodent infestation.
3. Whether Baker preserved her discrimination, security-door, security-deposit, landlord-access, quiet-enjoyment, and judicial-bias complaints for appellate review.

Disposition

affirmed