## Facts

- Denis C. LaFreniere converted the Cliff-House high-rise into condominiums and, after several years, still owned about 60% of the units.
- The condominium association (C‑H Council of Co‑Owners, Inc.) assessed each owner a monthly charge per square foot to fund operation and maintenance of common elements.
- The Council and several unit owners sued LaFreniere for unpaid assessments, alleging he failed to pay his pro rata share on the units he retained.
- The plaintiffs claimed LaFreniere owed $153,477.26 in past-due assessments.
- LaFreniere asserted an offset and counterclaim, contending he paid $177,285.06 in expenses on behalf of the Council, exceeding any assessments owed.
- At trial, LaFreniere introduced exhibits containing numerous canceled checks drawn on his personal or corporate accounts, supported by his testimony that they were issued in the regular course of business for Council-related expenses.

## Issues

1. Whether there was any evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, to support the jury’s finding that LaFreniere’s expenditures on behalf of the Council equaled or exceeded his past-due assessments.
2. Whether LaFreniere’s canceled-check exhibits were inadmissible hearsay for lack of a proper evidentiary foundation, such that they could not be considered in a legal-sufficiency review.
3. Whether the Council and unit owners could recover attorney’s fees despite obtaining no recovery on their underlying assessment claim.

## Decision

- The jury credited LaFreniere’s offset evidence, and the trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment for both sides (no recovery for plaintiffs and no recovery on LaFreniere’s counterclaim).
- The court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding the canceled checks were inadmissible hearsay and, without them, there was no evidence supporting the offset; it further concluded plaintiffs were entitled to assessments and attorney’s fees.
- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the trial court’s take-nothing judgment.
- The court held the record contained evidence supporting the jury’s offset finding and that plaintiffs, having no recovery, were not entitled to attorney’s fees.

## Legal Principles

- In a “no evidence” (legal sufficiency) review, an appellate court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and credit evidence and inferences that support the jury’s finding.
- Canceled checks, when tied to the disputed payments through the issuer’s testimony and admitted at trial, may constitute competent evidence of expenditures or payment for purposes of supporting a jury finding.
- Attorney’s fees dependent on prevailing on the underlying claim are unavailable when the claimant obtains no recovery on the merits.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court reinstated a take-nothing judgment after holding that LaFreniere’s testimony and canceled checks provided some evidence supporting the jury’s finding that his expenditures offset the Council’s assessment claim, and it denied attorney’s fees because the plaintiffs did not recover on their cause of action.


LaFreniere v. Fitzgerald, 669 S.W.2d 117 (Tex. 1984)