What specific evidence was lacking to prove the landlord's breach?

The tenant failed to provide concrete evidence demonstrating that the landlord actively prevented them from taking possession or failed to meet specific contractual obligations regarding the delivery of the premises. The court found the tenant's assertions insufficient.

Why are lost profits considered speculative in this context?

Lost profits are considered speculative when they are based on projections and assumptions rather than established business history or concrete evidence of what would have been earned. The tenant's business was new, making future profits difficult to predict with certainty.

Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin

Headline: Tenant Fails to Prove Landlord Breach of Commercial Lease

Citation:

Court: Texas Court of Appeals · Filed: 2026-03-12 · Docket: 02-26-00027-CV · Nature of Suit: Special Appearance

Published

Outcome: Defendant Win

Impact Score: 15/100 — Low impact: This case is narrowly focused with minimal precedential value.

Legal Topics: Breach of contract Commercial lease agreements Delivery of possession Lost profits damages Speculative damages Burden of proof in contract disputes

Legal Principles: Material breach of contractReasonable certainty standard for damagesSufficiency of evidence

Brief at a Glance

A tenant couldn't recover damages from a landlord for a delayed lease start because they didn't prove the landlord breached the contract or that their lost profits were certain.

Tenants must provide concrete evidence of a landlord's breach of contract, not just assumptions.
Claims for lost profits in commercial lease disputes require proof that the profits were certain and not speculative.
Failure to deliver possession of leased premises can be a breach of contract.

Case Summary

Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin, decided by Texas Court of Appeals on March 12, 2026, resulted in a defendant win outcome. This case concerns a dispute over a commercial lease agreement where the tenant, Williams Quality Rental, alleged that the landlord breached the contract by failing to deliver possession of the leased premises. The tenant sought damages for lost profits and other expenses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the tenant failed to prove the landlord's breach of contract with sufficient evidence and that the tenant's claims for lost profits were speculative. The court held: The court held that the tenant failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a breach of the lease agreement by the landlord, as the tenant did not prove that the landlord failed to deliver possession of the premises as required by the contract.. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the tenant's claims for lost profits were too speculative and not recoverable under Texas law, as the tenant could not demonstrate with reasonable certainty that such profits would have been earned but for the alleged breach.. The court found that the tenant did not meet the burden of proof to show that the landlord's actions or inactions constituted a material breach of the lease.. The appellate court deferred to the trial court's findings of fact, as they were supported by the evidence presented.. The court concluded that the tenant's claims for damages were not proven with the required degree of certainty..

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you rent a store space, but the landlord doesn't let you move in on the agreed-upon date. This case says that if you want to sue the landlord for not letting you in and for lost business profits, you need to provide solid proof that they broke the lease and that your lost profits are a sure thing, not just a guess. Without strong evidence, your case might be dismissed.

For Legal Practitioners

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the landlord, emphasizing the tenant's failure to meet the burden of proof for breach of contract and the speculative nature of lost profits. Practitioners should note the high evidentiary bar for proving lost profits in commercial lease disputes, particularly when possession is not delivered. This reinforces the need for clear contractual terms and robust evidence of damages beyond mere projections.

For Law Students

This case tests the elements of breach of contract, specifically the tenant's burden to prove non-delivery of possession and the recoverability of consequential damages like lost profits. It highlights the doctrine of certainty in damages, requiring proof that lost profits were not speculative. Students should understand how courts apply these principles in commercial lease disputes and the importance of evidentiary support for damage claims.

Newsroom Summary

A business lost its bid to sue a landlord for failing to deliver a leased commercial space. The court ruled the tenant didn't provide enough evidence of a broken contract or prove their claimed lost profits weren't just speculation, impacting businesses relying on timely lease fulfillment.

Key Holdings

The court established the following key holdings in this case:

The court held that the tenant failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a breach of the lease agreement by the landlord, as the tenant did not prove that the landlord failed to deliver possession of the premises as required by the contract.
The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the tenant's claims for lost profits were too speculative and not recoverable under Texas law, as the tenant could not demonstrate with reasonable certainty that such profits would have been earned but for the alleged breach.
The court found that the tenant did not meet the burden of proof to show that the landlord's actions or inactions constituted a material breach of the lease.
The appellate court deferred to the trial court's findings of fact, as they were supported by the evidence presented.
The court concluded that the tenant's claims for damages were not proven with the required degree of certainty.

Key Takeaways

Tenants must provide concrete evidence of a landlord's breach of contract, not just assumptions.
Claims for lost profits in commercial lease disputes require proof that the profits were certain and not speculative.
Failure to deliver possession of leased premises can be a breach of contract.
The burden of proof for damages rests heavily on the party claiming them.
Well-drafted leases and clear communication are crucial to avoid disputes over possession and damages.

Deep Legal Analysis

Rule Statements

"When a contract is unambiguous, we must enforce its plain meaning."

"A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation."

Entities and Participants

Key Takeaways

Tenants must provide concrete evidence of a landlord's breach of contract, not just assumptions.
Claims for lost profits in commercial lease disputes require proof that the profits were certain and not speculative.
Failure to deliver possession of leased premises can be a breach of contract.
The burden of proof for damages rests heavily on the party claiming them.
Well-drafted leases and clear communication are crucial to avoid disputes over possession and damages.

Know Your Rights

Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:

Scenario: You sign a lease for a new office space, but on the move-in date, the landlord tells you it's not ready and you can't access it. You've already given notice to your old landlord and have business plans set for the new location.

Your Rights: You have the right to expect the landlord to deliver possession of the leased premises as agreed in the contract. If they fail to do so, you may have grounds to sue for breach of contract and seek damages, but you must be able to prove the breach and your losses with solid evidence.

What To Do: Gather all documentation related to the lease agreement, including the lease itself, any correspondence about the move-in date, and proof of expenses incurred due to the delay. Consult with a legal professional to understand the specific evidence required to prove breach and lost profits in your jurisdiction.

Is It Legal?

Common legal questions answered by this ruling:

Is it legal for a landlord to fail to deliver possession of a commercial property on the lease start date?

No, it is generally not legal for a landlord to fail to deliver possession of a commercial property on the lease start date if the lease agreement specifies a delivery date. This would likely constitute a breach of contract, entitling the tenant to seek remedies.

This principle applies broadly across jurisdictions, but the specific remedies and proof required may vary.

Practical Implications

For Commercial Tenants

Commercial tenants must be prepared to provide strong evidence to prove both a landlord's breach of contract and the certainty of their lost profits if they are unable to take possession of a leased property. This ruling underscores the need for meticulous documentation and realistic damage projections.

For Commercial Landlords

Landlords may find some protection from speculative damage claims if tenants cannot adequately prove breach or lost profits. However, landlords still face significant liability if they fail to deliver possession as per the lease agreement, and tenants present sufficient evidence.

Related Legal Concepts

Breach of Contract
A failure to perform any term of a contract without a legitimate legal excuse. Lost Profits
Profits a party would have made if a contract had been fully performed, often cl... Consequential Damages
Damages that do not flow directly from the breach but are a result of special ci... Burden of Proof
The obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the... Speculative Damages
Damages that are uncertain or conjectural, meaning they are not based on concret...

Frequently Asked Questions (40)

Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.

Basic Questions (10)

Q: What is Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin about?

Q: What court decided Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin?

Q: When was Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin decided?

Q: What is the citation for Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin?

The citation for Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What type of case is Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin?

Q: What is the full case name for the dispute between Williams Quality Rental and its landlords?

The full case name is Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin. This extensive list of parties reflects the complex ownership and management structure of the commercial property.

Q: Who were the main parties involved in the Williams Quality Rental lease dispute?

The main parties were Williams Quality Rental, LLC, the tenant, and a group of landlords including Clarion Partners, LLC (and its various d/b/a entities), Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC (and its related entities), LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, and individuals Doug Johnson and D. Matthew Goodwin. The dispute centered on a commercial lease agreement between these entities.

Q: What was the core issue in the Williams Quality Rental v. Clarion Partners case?

The core issue was whether the landlord breached the commercial lease agreement by failing to deliver possession of the leased premises to the tenant, Williams Quality Rental. Williams Quality Rental alleged this failure constituted a breach of contract and sought damages.

Q: Which court decided the Williams Quality Rental lease dispute, and what was its ruling?

The case was decided by the Texas Court of Appeals (texapp). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling in favor of the landlords. The court found that Williams Quality Rental did not provide sufficient evidence to prove a breach of contract by the landlords.

Q: When did the dispute regarding the commercial lease likely arise?

While the exact date of the dispute's origin isn't specified in the summary, the case concerns a commercial lease agreement and a subsequent lawsuit for breach of contract. Such disputes typically arise after a lease is signed and a party fails to meet its obligations, likely occurring sometime after the lease was executed and before or during the period possession was to be delivered.

Legal Analysis (14)

Q: Is Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin published?

Q: What topics does Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin cover?

Q: What was the ruling in Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin. Key holdings: The court held that the tenant failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a breach of the lease agreement by the landlord, as the tenant did not prove that the landlord failed to deliver possession of the premises as required by the contract.; The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the tenant's claims for lost profits were too speculative and not recoverable under Texas law, as the tenant could not demonstrate with reasonable certainty that such profits would have been earned but for the alleged breach.; The court found that the tenant did not meet the burden of proof to show that the landlord's actions or inactions constituted a material breach of the lease.; The appellate court deferred to the trial court's findings of fact, as they were supported by the evidence presented.; The court concluded that the tenant's claims for damages were not proven with the required degree of certainty..

Q: What precedent does Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin set?

Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that the tenant failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a breach of the lease agreement by the landlord, as the tenant did not prove that the landlord failed to deliver possession of the premises as required by the contract. (2) The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the tenant's claims for lost profits were too speculative and not recoverable under Texas law, as the tenant could not demonstrate with reasonable certainty that such profits would have been earned but for the alleged breach. (3) The court found that the tenant did not meet the burden of proof to show that the landlord's actions or inactions constituted a material breach of the lease. (4) The appellate court deferred to the trial court's findings of fact, as they were supported by the evidence presented. (5) The court concluded that the tenant's claims for damages were not proven with the required degree of certainty.

Q: What are the key holdings in Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin?

1. The court held that the tenant failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a breach of the lease agreement by the landlord, as the tenant did not prove that the landlord failed to deliver possession of the premises as required by the contract. 2. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the tenant's claims for lost profits were too speculative and not recoverable under Texas law, as the tenant could not demonstrate with reasonable certainty that such profits would have been earned but for the alleged breach. 3. The court found that the tenant did not meet the burden of proof to show that the landlord's actions or inactions constituted a material breach of the lease. 4. The appellate court deferred to the trial court's findings of fact, as they were supported by the evidence presented. 5. The court concluded that the tenant's claims for damages were not proven with the required degree of certainty.

Q: What cases are related to Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin?

Precedent cases cited or related to Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin: Hickman v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 780 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, writ denied); Texas Commerce Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Grizzle, 960 S.W.2d 102, 106 (Tex. 1997).

Q: What type of legal claim did Williams Quality Rental bring against the landlords?

Williams Quality Rental brought a claim for breach of contract against the landlords. They alleged that the landlords failed to fulfill their contractual obligation to deliver possession of the leased commercial premises as required by the lease agreement.

Q: What was the appellate court's primary reason for affirming the trial court's decision against Williams Quality Rental?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision because Williams Quality Rental failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that the landlords had breached the contract. The court found the evidence presented by the tenant was inadequate to establish a breach of the lease agreement.

Q: What specific type of damages did Williams Quality Rental seek, and why were they denied?

Williams Quality Rental sought damages for lost profits and other expenses. The court denied these claims, particularly the lost profits, because they were deemed speculative. The tenant did not provide enough concrete evidence to demonstrate the certainty of these profits or that they were a direct result of the alleged breach.

Q: What legal standard must a party meet to prove a breach of contract in Texas?

To prove a breach of contract in Texas, a party must generally show (1) the existence of a valid contract, (2) the plaintiff performed or was excused from performing, (3) the defendant breached the contract, and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach. In this case, the appellate court found Williams Quality Rental failed to sufficiently prove the third element (defendant's breach) with adequate evidence.

Q: How did the court analyze the tenant's claim for lost profits?

The court analyzed the tenant's claim for lost profits by assessing whether they were proven with reasonable certainty. The opinion indicates that the claims were considered speculative, meaning the tenant did not offer enough evidence to establish that the profits were a direct and foreseeable consequence of the alleged breach, nor that they would have been earned but for the landlord's actions.

Q: Did the court consider the landlords' actions to be a breach of the lease agreement?

No, the court did not find that the landlords' actions constituted a breach of the lease agreement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that Williams Quality Rental did not provide sufficient evidence to prove a breach occurred, meaning the landlords were not found liable for failing to deliver possession.

Q: What is the significance of 'sufficient evidence' in this ruling?

The ruling highlights the importance of 'sufficient evidence' in proving a legal claim. Williams Quality Rental's failure to present adequate evidence to support its allegations of breach and speculative claims for lost profits led to the dismissal of its case, underscoring the need for concrete proof in litigation.

Q: Does this ruling set a new legal precedent for commercial lease disputes in Texas?

This ruling likely reinforces existing Texas law regarding breach of contract claims and the evidentiary standards required to prove damages, particularly lost profits. While it applies existing legal principles to the specific facts of this case, it may serve as persuasive authority for future disputes involving similar lease provisions and evidentiary challenges.

Practical Implications (5)

Q: What is the practical impact of this decision on commercial tenants in Texas?

This decision serves as a cautionary reminder for commercial tenants to meticulously document all communications and actions related to lease agreements and to gather substantial evidence to support any claims of landlord breach. Tenants seeking damages, especially lost profits, must be prepared to demonstrate their claims with concrete proof rather than speculation.

Q: How might this ruling affect landlords of commercial properties in Texas?

For landlords, this ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to lease terms, particularly regarding the delivery of possession. It also demonstrates that if a tenant fails to provide sufficient evidence of a breach or speculative damages, the landlord has a strong defense, potentially saving them from costly litigation and liability.

Q: What should a commercial tenant do if they believe their landlord has breached a lease agreement regarding possession?

A commercial tenant should immediately consult with legal counsel and gather all relevant documentation, including the lease agreement, correspondence, and any evidence demonstrating the landlord's failure to deliver possession. They must also be prepared to present concrete evidence of damages, such as documented expenses and a well-supported calculation of lost profits, to avoid claims being deemed speculative.

Q: What are the implications for businesses relying on leased commercial space for future profits?

Businesses relying on leased space for future profits must ensure their lease agreements clearly define the landlord's obligations regarding possession and that they have a robust business plan to substantiate potential lost profits if possession is delayed or denied. The speculative nature of lost profits means businesses need to present detailed financial projections and market analyses.

Q: Does this case suggest any changes to how commercial leases are drafted in Texas?

While not explicitly stated, the case implicitly encourages clearer drafting of lease clauses related to possession delivery and remedies for breach. Both landlords and tenants may benefit from more precise language to avoid ambiguity and ensure that expectations regarding possession and potential damages are well-defined and legally defensible.

Historical Context (3)

Q: How does this case fit into the broader history of contract law regarding commercial leases?

This case aligns with a long-standing principle in contract law that a party alleging breach must prove their case with sufficient evidence. The specific focus on the landlord's duty to deliver possession is a common issue in commercial leasing, and the court's rejection of speculative damages reflects a consistent judicial approach to prevent unfounded financial claims.

Q: Are there landmark Texas cases that established the duty to deliver possession in commercial leases?

The duty to deliver possession in commercial leases is a well-established common law principle, often codified or implied in lease agreements. While this specific case may not be a landmark itself, it relies on established doctrines that have been developed through numerous prior Texas Supreme Court and appellate decisions over many years.

Q: How does the 'speculative damages' ruling compare to other contract law cases?

The ruling on speculative damages is consistent with general contract law principles across jurisdictions, including Texas. Courts consistently require proof of damages with reasonable certainty, disallowing claims based on conjecture or mere possibility. This case applies that established principle to the context of lost profits in a commercial lease dispute.

Procedural Questions (6)

Q: What was the docket number in Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin?

The docket number for Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin is 02-26-00027-CV. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: How did Williams Quality Rental's case reach the Texas Court of Appeals?

The case reached the Texas Court of Appeals after a trial court rendered a decision. Williams Quality Rental, as the losing party at the trial level, likely appealed the trial court's judgment to the appellate court, arguing that the trial court made errors in its findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the breach of contract and damages.

Q: What procedural hurdles did Williams Quality Rental face in proving its case?

Williams Quality Rental faced the procedural hurdle of presenting sufficient evidence to satisfy the legal elements of a breach of contract claim. Specifically, they needed to provide concrete proof of the landlord's breach and quantifiable evidence for their claimed lost profits, rather than relying on assumptions or projections that the court deemed speculative.

Q: What does it mean for the appellate court to 'affirm' the trial court's decision?

When an appellate court affirms a trial court's decision, it means the appellate court agrees with the lower court's ruling and finds no reversible error. In this instance, the Texas Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's judgment that Williams Quality Rental failed to prove its case against the landlords.

Q: Could Williams Quality Rental have appealed to the Texas Supreme Court?

Potentially, Williams Quality Rental could seek review from the Texas Supreme Court by filing a petition for review. However, the Texas Supreme Court has discretion over which cases it hears and typically grants review only in cases involving significant legal questions or conflicts in lower court decisions, which may not have been present here.

Cited Precedents

This opinion references the following precedent cases:

Hickman v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 780 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, writ denied)
Texas Commerce Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Grizzle, 960 S.W.2d 102, 106 (Tex. 1997)

Case Details

Case Name	Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin
Citation
Court	Texas Court of Appeals
Date Filed	2026-03-12
Docket Number	02-26-00027-CV
Precedential Status	Published
Nature of Suit	Special Appearance
Outcome	Defendant Win
Disposition	affirmed
Impact Score	15 / 100
Complexity	moderate
Legal Topics	Breach of contract, Commercial lease agreements, Delivery of possession, Lost profits damages, Speculative damages, Burden of proof in contract disputes
Jurisdiction	tx

Related Legal Resources

Texas Court of Appeals Opinions Breach of contract Commercial lease agreements Delivery of possession Lost profits damages Speculative damages Burden of proof in contract disputes tx Jurisdiction Know Your Rights: Breach of contract Know Your Rights: Commercial lease agreements Know Your Rights: Delivery of possession Home Search Cases Is It Legal? 2026 Cases All Courts All Topics States Rankings Breach of contract Guide Commercial lease agreements Guide Material breach of contract (Legal Term)Reasonable certainty standard for damages (Legal Term)Sufficiency of evidence (Legal Term) Breach of contract Topic Hub Commercial lease agreements Topic Hub Delivery of possession Topic Hub

About This Analysis

This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Williams Quality Rental, LLC v. Clarion Partners, LLC D/B/A Texas Clarion Partners, LLC, Texas Commercial Development, LLC, Northlake 35 LLC D/B/A NL 35, LLC, Northlake 35 Logistics Park, LLC, Northlake 35 Manager, LLC, LIT Industrial Limited Partnership, TCD Northlake Member 1, LLC, Doug Johnson, and D. Matthew Goodwin was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.

CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.

AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.

Related Cases

Other opinions on Breach of contract or from the Texas Court of Appeals:

In Re Gregory G. Idom v. the State of Texas
Appellate court affirms conviction, admitting evidence of prior offenses

Texas Court of Appeals · 2026-04-24
Access Dental Management, LLC v. June's Boutique, LLC
Non-compete agreement unenforceable as standalone contract

Texas Court of Appeals · 2026-04-23
Homer Esquivel Jr. v. the State of Texas
Appellate court upholds conviction, admitting prior bad acts evidence

Texas Court of Appeals · 2026-04-23
In Re Nancy Vasquez and Bolivar Building and Contracting, LLC v. the State of Texas
Texas Court Affirms Personal Liability for Unpaid Corporate Unemployment Taxes

Texas Court of Appeals · 2026-04-23
In Re Randall Bolivar v. the State of Texas
Appellate court upholds conviction, admitting prior "bad acts" evidence

Texas Court of Appeals · 2026-04-23
Jason Kelsey v. Maria M. Rocha
Court Affirms Property Line and Easement Ruling for Plaintiff

Texas Court of Appeals · 2026-04-23
Jose Luis Espinoza v. the State of Texas
Appellate Court Affirms Assault Conviction, Upholds Admissibility of Extraneous Offense Evidence

Texas Court of Appeals · 2026-04-23
Michael Marvin Tucker v. the State of Texas
Prior bad acts evidence admissible to prove intent and identity in assault case

Texas Court of Appeals · 2026-04-23