account claim in Texas

2023See McFarland, 293 S.W.3d at 763 (“Because an agreement on which an account stated claim is based can be express or implied, Citibank did not have to produce a written contract as long as it could produce other evidence of the agreement between the parties to meet its burden of proof.”); see also Hwang v. Capital One Nat’l Ass’n, No. 02-22-00120-CV, 2023 WL 166434 , at *9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 13, 2023, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (concluding that forty pages of documents that Capital One submitted with its business-records affidavit, along with the testimony of Capital One’s representative,

2023Id.

2024See Dulong, 261 S.W.3d at 894 .

2015In Montoya , the court set out the elements for an account stated claim and specifically recognized that a “party is entitled to relief for a stated account.” 2010 WL 4261481 , at *2 (citing Dulong v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 261 S.W.3d 890, 893 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.).

2014Powers v. Adams, 2 S.W.3d 496, 498 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (citing Roberts Express, Inc. v. Expert Transp., Inc., 842 S.W.2d 766, 770 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, no writ)); see Tex.R.

2008Powers v. Adams , 2 S.W.3d 496, 498 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (citing Roberts Express, Inc. v. Expert Transp., Inc. , 842 S.W.2d 766, 770 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, no writ)); see Tex. R.

2014Powers v. Adams, 2 S.W.3d 496, 498 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (citing Roberts Express, Inc. v. Expert Transp., Inc., 842 S.W.2d 766, 770 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, no writ)); see Tex.R.

2008Powers v. Adams , 2 S.W.3d 496, 498 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (citing Roberts Express, Inc. v. Expert Transp., Inc. , 842 S.W.2d 766, 770 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, no writ)); see Tex. R.

2020See, e.g., Busch, 312 S.W.3d at 299 (citing McFarland v. Citibank (S. Dakota), N.A., 293 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009, no pet.)).

2015See Aymett, 397 S.W.3d at 878 ; Busch, 312 S.W.3d at 299 ; Dulong, 261 S.W.3d at 893 .

2018See Walker v. Citibank, N.A., 458 S.W.3d 689, 692-93 (Tex.App.--Eastland 2015, no pet.), citing McFarland, 293 S.W.3d at 763 .

2018See Walker v. Citibank, N.A., 458 S.W.3d 689, 692-93 (Tex.App.--Eastland 2015, no pet.), citing McFarland, 293 S.W.3d at 763 .

2018N.A., 397 S.W.3d 876, 878 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.) (describing elements of an account stated claim). or business: 420 Murray Rd., Fairview TX, 75069.

2015See Aymett, 397 S.W.3d at 878 ; Busch, 312 S.W.3d at 299 ; Dulong, 261 S.W.3d at 893 .

2013See Compton, 364 S.W.3d at 418 ; Dulong, 261 S.W.3d at 893 ; Moir v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., No. 05-09-00641-CV, 2010 WL 2574212 , at *2 (Tex. App.––Dallas June 29, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.).

2013Compton, 364 S.W.3d at 420 (citing Dulong, 261 S.W.3d at 894 ).

2012Id. § 2605(e )( 1)(B); Bittinger v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. , 744 F. Supp. 2d 619, 627 (S.D.

2012Id. § 2605(e)(1)(B); Bittinger v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 744 F.Supp.2d 619, 627 (S.D.Tex.2010).

2009See Neil , 693 S.W.2d at 605 .

2008See Neil, 693 S.W.2d at 605 .

2004See Sterling , 822 S.W.2d at 11 B 12; Flint & Assocs. v. Intercontinental Pipe & Steel, Inc ., 739 S.W.2d 622 , 624 B 25 (Tex. App. C Dallas 1987, writ denied) (holding that successful sworn-account plaintiff did not have to segregate its attorney = s fees for prosecuting its claim from its fees for defending a DTPA counterclaim because the claims arose out of the same transaction and were so interrelated that their prosecution or defense entailed proof or denial of essentially the same facts) & id . at 628 (Baker, J., dissenting) (dissenting from segregation ruling and arguing that segregatio

2004See Sterling, 822 S.W.2d at 11-12 ; Flint & Assocs. v. Intercontinental Pipe & Steel, Inc., 739 S.W.2d 622, 624-25 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, writ denied) (holding that successful sworn-account plaintiff did not have to segregate its attorney’s fees for prosecuting its claim from its fees for defending a DTPA counterclaim because the claims *692 arose out of the same transaction and were so interrelated that their prosecution or defense entailed proof or denial of essentially the same facts) & id. at 628 (Baker, J., dissenting) (dissenting from segregation ruling and arguing that segregation shoul

2004See Sterling, 822 S.W.2d at 11-12 ; Flint & Assocs. v. Intercontinental Pipe & Steel, Inc., 739 S.W.2d 622, 624-25 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, writ denied) (holding that successful sworn-account plaintiff did not have to segregate its attorney’s fees for prosecuting its claim from its fees for defending a DTPA counterclaim because the claims *692 arose out of the same transaction and were so interrelated that their prosecution or defense entailed proof or denial of essentially the same facts) & id. at 628 (Baker, J., dissenting) (dissenting from segregation ruling and arguing that segregation shoul

2004See Sterling, 822 S.W.2d at 11-12 ; Flint & Assocs. v. Intercontinental Pipe & Steel, Inc., 739 S.W.2d 622, 624-25 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, writ denied) (holding that successful sworn-account plaintiff did not have to segregate its attorney’s fees for prosecuting its claim from its fees for defending a DTPA counterclaim because the claims *692 arose out of the same transaction and were so interrelated that their prosecution or defense entailed proof or denial of essentially the same facts) & id. at 628 (Baker, J., dissenting) (dissenting from segregation ruling and arguing that segregation shoul

2024Servs., Inc. v. SM Energy Co., 398 S.W.3d 350, 355 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (rejecting appellant’s complaints that accounting did not specify exactly what services were provided because it included unexplained abbreviations and appellant did not specially except).

2013Schwartzott v. Maravilla Owners Ass'n, 390 S.W.3d 15, 19 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet denied). 4 .

2009See id. at 631-32 .

1996TEX.R.CIV.P. 185 (Vernon 1995) (written as amended in 1984) (emphasis added). [1] The majority relies on Murphy v. Cintas, 923 S.W.2d 663, 665 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1996, n.w.h.); Great-Ness Professional Serv. v. First Nat'l Bank of Louisville, 704 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ); Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc. v. Coldwell Banker Property Management Co., 635 S.W.2d 135, 138 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

1996TEX.R.CIV.P. 185 (Vernon 1995) (written as amended in 1984) (emphasis added). [1] The majority relies on Murphy v. Cintas, 923 S.W.2d 663, 665 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1996, n.w.h.); Great-Ness Professional Serv. v. First Nat'l Bank of Louisville, 704 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ); Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc. v. Coldwell Banker Property Management Co., 635 S.W.2d 135, 138 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

1996TEX.R.CIV.P. 185 (Vernon 1995) (written as amended in 1984) (emphasis added). [1] The majority relies on Murphy v. Cintas, 923 S.W.2d 663, 665 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1996, n.w.h.); Great-Ness Professional Serv. v. First Nat'l Bank of Louisville, 704 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ); Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc. v. Coldwell Banker Property Management Co., 635 S.W.2d 135, 138 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

1993Hidalgo v. Surety Sav. and Loan Ass'n , 462 S.W.2d 540, 543, n.1 (Tex. 1971); Special Marine Prods., Inc. v. Weeks Welding & Constr., Inc. , 625 S.W.2d 822, 827 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ); Brightwell , 619 S.W.2d at 253 .

1993Hidalgo v. Surety Sav. and Loan Ass'n , 462 S.W.2d 540, 543, n.1 (Tex. 1971); Special Marine Prods., Inc. v. Weeks Welding & Constr., Inc. , 625 S.W.2d 822, 827 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ); Brightwell , 619 S.W.2d at 253 .

1983Crouch v. Stanley, 390 S.W.2d 795, 798 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1965, writ ref’d n.r.e.), cert, denied, 383 U.S. 945 , 86 S.Ct. 1201 , 16 L.Ed.2d 208 (1966).