In an outcome we can’t remember having seen, at least in a long time, the Houston [14th] Court of Appeals has reversed the trial and rendered take-nothing judgments on both Plaintiff’s fraudulent lien claim and Defendant’s counterclaim for breach of contract.
West Houston Airport Corporation v. Sweet Water Well Service, LLC (No. 14-23-00369-CV; October 16, 2025) arose from a dispute over an aircraft repair and maintenance lien. After the owner of a Piper Cherokee defaulted on payments to the airport for storing the airplane in 2014, the airport filed a lien for $7,177.47 to recover two years of storage fees. The airport subsequently sold the aircraft to Sweet Water, which received the title under an agreement that the original owner would receive no money, but Sweet Water would pay the lien. By this time, the amount of the lien had grown to $14,000, and the airport advised Sweet Water it would have to pay up before the airport could release the plane. Instead of paying off the lien, Sweet Water filed suit against the Airport in February 2017, asserting a cause of action under Chapter 12, CPRC (fraudulent lien), and Chapter 70, Subchapter D, Property Code (aircraft mechanics’ lien). The Airport asserted several affirmative claims for relief, alleging that Sweet Water had assumed the storage contract, then breached it. To complicate matters, in 2018 the Airport foreclosed on the lien and sold the aircraft to a third party for $35,000. The case went to jury trial in 2023, which awarded Sweet Water $9,177.47 but determined that the airport’s lien was not fraudulent. Both parties appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Wise, the court of appeals reversed and rendered. Sweet Water first asserted that the jury’s finding that the airport’s lien was not fraudulent was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Under § 12.002(a), CPRC, to prevail on its fraudulent lien claim Sweet Water had to show that the airport knew the lien was fraudulent and intended to cause a person to suffer personal or financial injury by presenting it. The court determined that Sweet Water failed to prove that the airport knew that it was not entitled to hold the lien. First round to the airport.
Next, the airport contended that the jury’s award of $9,177.47 to Sweet Water constituted error because the jury did not find the airport liable. Sweet Water argued that the jury made an implied finding of liability when determined that the lien amount presented to Sweet Water came to $7,177.47. The court agreed with the airport, noting that the “jury charge [did] not include any question that required the jury to make a finding on the validity of the Airport’s aircraft repair and maintenance lien.” Arguments at trial instead focused on the amount of the lien or what should be considered “reasonable” expenses incurred for the storage of the aircraft. Sweet Water failed to get the jury the determine a critical element of a § 70.301, Property Code, claim: “(1) what amount was the Airport entitled to recover under a contract for the storage, fuel, repairs, or maintenance work or (2) what was ‘the reasonable and usual compensation for the storage, fuel, repairs, or maintenance work.” The amount of the lien presented to Sweet Water, in fact, was immaterial (because the jury did not find liability on the fraudulent lien claim) and should not have been submitted to the jury in the first place. As such, the trial court had discretion to disregard it.
The court then turned to airport’s challenge of the award of attorney’s fees to Sweet Water in the final judgment. The airport contended that because Sweet Water did not prevail at trial on its fraudulent lien claim, it was not entitled to statutory attorney fees. The court agreed that the trial court “erred when it determined that ‘the verdict was for the Plaintiff and against the Defendant,’ and awarded attorney’s fees against the Airport and in favor of Sweet Water.” (We remain mystified that the trial court did that.)
Sweet Water’s next issue was that the trial court erred by denying its motion for a directed verdict stating that it was entitled to excess proceeds from the sale of the aircraft after payment of the lien. Sweet Water argued that once the correct lien amount was ascertained, the statute allows a lien holder to sell the airplane at a public auction to recoup the amount of the lien. Any excess proceeds from such a sale would be paid to the airplane’s current owner. Unfortunately for Sweet Water, it never got the jury to determine the correct amount of the lien. The trial court thus properly denied its motion for a directed verdict.
Both parties took issue with the trial court’s judgment on the airport’s counterclaim for breach of contract. Sweet Water asserted the trial court erred in not granting its motion for directed verdict on the basis that the airport produced no evidence that Sweet Water had assumed the original owner’s contract. The airport challenged the jury’s finding of no damages, despite uncontroverted evidence of damages. As to Sweet Water’s argument, the court examined the airport’s pleadings, which offered only the testimony of the airport manager as proof that Sweet Water assumed Krause’s contract and breached the contract. This testimony, however, failed to raise even a scintilla of evidence that Sweet Water assumed the storage contract. The court thus agreed with Sweet Water that the trial court had erred and should have directed a verdict for Sweet Water on the airport’s breach-of-contract claim.
Finally, the court disposed of the airport’s argument that the jury’s denial of breach-of-contract damages to the airport was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Even though the airport provided uncontroverted evidence of the expenses incurred to maintain and store the aircraft, it didn’t make any difference because the court already ruled that the trial court erred in submitting the claim to the jury.
The court of Appeals rendered a take-nothing judgment on the airport’s claims against Sweet Water. But, alas for Sweet Water, it also reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment on Sweet Water’s claims against the airport.
TCJL Intern Satchel Williams researched and prepared the first draft of this article.
