liquidated claim in Texas

2025“If the instrument in writing is attached to the plaintiff’s petition and if the amount of damages can be calculated from the allegation in the petition, judgment should be entered for that amount against the defaulting defendant.” First Nat’l Bank of Irving v. Shockley, 663 S.W.2d 685, 688 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1983, no writ); see also Novosad v. Cunningham, 38 S.W.3d 767, 773 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (holding suit to recover amount due for professional services was a liquidated claim proved by written instruments where plaintiff attached original invoices t

2019“If the instrument in writing is attached to the plaintiff’s -5- 04-19-00055-CV petition and if the amount of damages can be calculated from the allegation in the petition, judgment should be entered for that amount against the defaulting defendant.” First Nat’l Bank of Irving v. Shockley, 663 S.W.2d 685, 688 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 1983, no writ); see also Novosad v. Cunningham, 38 S.W.3d 767, 773 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (holding suit to recover amount due for professional services was a liquidated claim proved by written instruments where plaintiff attached

2015See, e.g., Woodhaven Partners, Ltd. v. Shamoun & Norman, L.L.P., 422 S.W.3d 821, 845-46 (Tex.App. – Dallas 2014, no pet.) (a claim is liquidated if the amount of damages may be accurately calculated by the trial court from the factual, as opposed to the conclusory, allegations in plaintiff's petition and the instrument in writing); Novosad v. Cunningham, 38 S.W.3d 767, 773 (Tex.App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (suit to recover amount due for professional services was a liquidated claim proven by written invoices attached to original petition); Mantis v. Resz, 5 S.W.3d 388, 392 (Tex.A

2015Pentes Design, Inc. v. Perez, 840 for professional services was a liquidated claim proven S.W.2d 75, 79 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1992, by written instruments); Mantis v. Resz, 5 S.W.3d 388 , writ denied).

2009See First Nat’l Bank v. Shockley, 663 S.W.2d 685, 688 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no writ) (“A liquidated claim is one that ‘can be accurately calculated by the court, or under its direction, from the allegations contained in plaintiff’s petition in the instrument in writing.’”) 4 (quoting Freeman v. Leasing Assocs., Inc., 503 S.W.2d 406, 408 (Tex. Civ.

2009See First Nat'l Bank v. Shockley , 663 S.W.2d 685, 688 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1983, no writ) ("A liquidated claim is one that 'can be accurately calculated by the court, or under its direction, from the allegations contained in plaintiff's petition in the instrument in writing.'") (quoting Freeman v. Leasing Assocs., Inc. , 503 S.W.2d 406, 408 (Tex. Civ.

2025“If the instrument in writing is attached to the plaintiff’s petition and if the amount of damages can be calculated from the allegation in the petition, judgment should be entered for that amount against the defaulting defendant.” First Nat’l Bank of Irving v. Shockley, 663 S.W.2d 685, 688 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1983, no writ); see also Novosad v. Cunningham, 38 S.W.3d 767, 773 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (holding suit to recover amount due for professional services was a liquidated claim proved by written instruments where plaintiff attached original invoices t

2019“If the instrument in writing is attached to the plaintiff’s -5- 04-19-00055-CV petition and if the amount of damages can be calculated from the allegation in the petition, judgment should be entered for that amount against the defaulting defendant.” First Nat’l Bank of Irving v. Shockley, 663 S.W.2d 685, 688 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 1983, no writ); see also Novosad v. Cunningham, 38 S.W.3d 767, 773 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (holding suit to recover amount due for professional services was a liquidated claim proved by written instruments where plaintiff attached

2007Novosad v. Cunningham, 38 S.W.3d 767, 773 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (suit to recover amount due for professional services was a liquidated claim proven by written instruments); Mantis v. Resz, 5 S.W.3d 388, 392 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied), overruled on other grounds, Sheldon v. Emergency Medicine Consultants, 43 S.W.3d 701, 702-03 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth *810 2001, no pet.) (in a suit on a sworn account, the petition with an attached sworn account and verified affidavit of the sworn account was a liquidated claim proved by written instruments); Sheshunoff & Co. v.

2005Novosad v. Cunningham, 38 S.W.3d 767, 773 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (suit to recover amount due for professional services was a liquidated claim proven by written instruments); Mantis v. Resz, 5 S.W.3d 388,392 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied), rev'don other grounds, 43 S.W.3d 701, 702-03 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2001, no pet.) (in a suit on a sworn account, the petition with an attached sworn account and verified affidavit of the sworn account was a liquidated claim proved by written instruments); Sheshunoff & Co. v. Scholl, 560 S.W.2d 113,115 (Tex. Civ.

2007Novosad v. Cunningham, 38 S.W.3d 767, 773 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (suit to recover amount due for professional services was a liquidated claim proven by written instruments); Mantis v. Resz, 5 S.W.3d 388, 392 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied), overruled on other grounds, Sheldon v. Emergency Medicine Consultants, 43 S.W.3d 701, 702-03 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth *810 2001, no pet.) (in a suit on a sworn account, the petition with an attached sworn account and verified affidavit of the sworn account was a liquidated claim proved by written instruments); Sheshunoff & Co. v.

2005Novosad v. Cunningham, 38 S.W.3d 767, 773 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (suit to recover amount due for professional services was a liquidated claim proven by written instruments); Mantis v. Resz, 5 S.W.3d 388,392 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied), rev'don other grounds, 43 S.W.3d 701, 702-03 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2001, no pet.) (in a suit on a sworn account, the petition with an attached sworn account and verified affidavit of the sworn account was a liquidated claim proved by written instruments); Sheshunoff & Co. v. Scholl, 560 S.W.2d 113,115 (Tex. Civ.

2015Moreover, the amount of interest incurred on these loans "can be determined with exactness ... by arithmetical process." See Rycade Oil Corp. v. Lasater, 375 S.W.2d 556, 557 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1964, no writ) (internal quotation marks omitted) ("Liquidated means made certain as to what and how much is due, and a liquidated claim is one which can be determined with exactness from the agreement between the parties, or by arithmetical process, or by the application of definite rules of law.”); see also Ortiz Oil Co. v. Geyer, 138 Tex. 373 , 159 S.W.2d 494, 497 (1942) (concluding that demand of r

2015Moreover, the amount of interest incurred on these loans "can be determined with exactness ... by arithmetical process." See Rycade Oil Corp. v. Lasater, 375 S.W.2d 556, 557 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1964, no writ) (internal quotation marks omitted) ("Liquidated means made certain as to what and how much is due, and a liquidated claim is one which can be determined with exactness from the agreement between the parties, or by arithmetical process, or by the application of definite rules of law.”); see also Ortiz Oil Co. v. Geyer, 138 Tex. 373 , 159 S.W.2d 494, 497 (1942) (concluding that demand of r

2026An evidentiary hearing is not required prior to entry of a default judgment because, when a default judgment is entered on a liquidated claim, “the rules of . . . procedure contemplate that the plaintiff be awarded the damages without the necessity of a hearing or the presentation of evidence.” Id. (quoting Taylor v. State, 293 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009, no pet.)).

2025The reason for this is that when a default judgment is entered on a liquidated claim, “the rules of . . . procedure contemplate that the plaintiff be awarded the damages without the necessity of a hearing or the presentation of evidence.” Taylor v. State, 293 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009, no pet.).

2009See Walton v. First Nat’l Bank of Trenton, 956 S.W.2d 647, 651 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, pet. denied) (noting claims for title to or possession of property need not be presented to administrator before filing a suit for those claims); Connelly v. Paul, 731 S.W.2d 657, 660 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (noting claim for title to or possession of property need not be presented to and rejected by administrator); Lusk v. Mintz, 625 S.W.2d 774, 776 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ) (same) (quoting Furse, Claims Practice In Probate Matters, 34 TEX .

2009See Walton v. First Nat'l Bank of Trenton , 956 S.W.2d 647, 651 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1997, pet. denied) (noting claims for title to or possession of property need not be presented to administrator before filing a suit for those claims); Connelly v. Paul , 731 S.W.2d 657, 660 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (noting claim for title to or possession of property need not be presented to and rejected by administrator); Lusk v. Mintz , 625 S.W.2d 774, 776 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ) (same) (quoting Furse, Claims Practice In Probate Matters , 34 Tex. B.J.

2025See Aavid Thermal, 68 S.W.3d at 711 ; see also Agar Corp., 580 S.W.3d at 140 (“[C]ivil conspiracy is a vicarious liability theory that imparts joint-and-several liability to a co-conspirator who may not be liable for the underlying tort.”). - 10 - 04-24-00539-CV Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Lingle’s motion to modify the default judgment to conform to Sage’s pleadings, including the trial court’s award of $418,816.72 in damages to Sage.

2019See Aavid Thermal, 68 S.W.3d at 711 ; see also Novosad, 38 S.W.3d at 767 (holding an original invoice attached to a verified petition supports a finding that the amount owed under the invoice for professional services is a liquidated claim).

2015See, e.g., Woodhaven Partners, Ltd. v. Shamoun & Norman, L.L.P., 422 S.W.3d 821, 845-46 (Tex.App. – Dallas 2014, no pet.) (a claim is liquidated if the amount of damages may be accurately calculated by the trial court from the factual, as opposed to the conclusory, allegations in plaintiff's petition and the instrument in writing); Novosad v. Cunningham, 38 S.W.3d 767, 773 (Tex.App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (suit to recover amount due for professional services was a liquidated claim proven by written invoices attached to original petition); Mantis v. Resz, 5 S.W.3d 388, 392 (Tex.A

2015See, e.g., Woodhaven Partners, Ltd. v. Shamoun & Norman, L.L.P., 422 S.W.3d 821, 845-46 (Tex.App.Dallas 2014, no pet.) (a claim is liquidated if the amount of damages may be accurately calculated by the trial court from the factual, as opposed to the conclusory, allegations in plaintiff’s petition and the instrument in writing); Novosad v. Cunningham, 38 S.W.3d 767, 773 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (suit to recover amount due for professional services was a liquidated claim proven by written invoices attached to original petition); Mantis v. Resz, 5 S.W.3d 388, 392 (Tex.App.-F

2009See Walton v. First Nat’l Bank of Trenton, 956 S.W.2d 647, 651 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, pet. denied) (noting claims for title to or possession of property need not be presented to administrator before filing a suit for those claims); Connelly v. Paul, 731 S.W.2d 657, 660 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (noting claim for title to or possession of property need not be presented to and rejected by administrator); Lusk v. Mintz, 625 S.W.2d 774, 776 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ) (same) (quoting Furse, Claims Practice In Probate Matters, 34 TEX .

2009See Walton v. First Nat'l Bank of Trenton , 956 S.W.2d 647, 651 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1997, pet. denied) (noting claims for title to or possession of property need not be presented to administrator before filing a suit for those claims); Connelly v. Paul , 731 S.W.2d 657, 660 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (noting claim for title to or possession of property need not be presented to and rejected by administrator); Lusk v. Mintz , 625 S.W.2d 774, 776 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ) (same) (quoting Furse, Claims Practice In Probate Matters , 34 Tex. B.J.

2009See Walton v. First Nat’l Bank of Trenton, 956 S.W.2d 647, 651 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, pet. denied) (noting claims for title to or possession of property need not be presented to administrator before filing a suit for those claims); Connelly v. Paul, 731 S.W.2d 657, 660 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (noting claim for title to or possession of property need not be presented to and rejected by administrator); Lusk v. Mintz, 625 S.W.2d 774, 776 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ) (same) (quoting Furse, Claims Practice In Probate Matters, 34 TEX .

2009See Walton v. First Nat'l Bank of Trenton , 956 S.W.2d 647, 651 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1997, pet. denied) (noting claims for title to or possession of property need not be presented to administrator before filing a suit for those claims); Connelly v. Paul , 731 S.W.2d 657, 660 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (noting claim for title to or possession of property need not be presented to and rejected by administrator); Lusk v. Mintz , 625 S.W.2d 774, 776 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ) (same) (quoting Furse, Claims Practice In Probate Matters , 34 Tex. B.J.

2025In contrast, “unliquidated damages are not susceptible to exact calculation and involve a range of possible answers.” Paradigm Oil, 372 S.W.3d at 186 .

2019In contrast, “unliquidated damages are not susceptible to exact calculation and involve a range of possible answers.” Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 372 S.W.3d 177, 186 (Tex. 2012).

1987Burrows v. Bowden, 564 S.W.2d 474 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1978, no writ); C & H Transportation Company v. Wright, 396 S.W.2d 443 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1965, writ ref’d n.r. e.).

1983Burrows v. Bowden, 564 S.W.2d 474 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi, 1978); C & H Transportation Company, Inc. v. Wright, 396 S.W.2d 443 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1965, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Rule 241 and Rule 243. 7 We find that appellee’s petition herein states a liquidated claim as it includes sufficient factual allegations to allow the court to conclude that a usurious transaction occurred and accurately calculate the damages thereunder.

2026Servs., Inc. v. SM 8 Energy Co., 398 S.W.3d 350, 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). 3 So, a liquidated claim may be both a breach of contract claim and a suit on sworn account.

2026Moore v. McKinney, 151 S.W.2d 255, 260 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1941, no writ) (op. on reh’g).

2018Co., 983 S.W.2d 771, 774 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied) (“If a claimant fails to present a liquidated claim to the administrator, any resulting order of payment is void.”).

2015Moreover, the amount of interest incurred on these loans "can be determined with exactness ... by arithmetical process." See Rycade Oil Corp. v. Lasater, 375 S.W.2d 556, 557 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1964, no writ) (internal quotation marks omitted) ("Liquidated means made certain as to what and how much is due, and a liquidated claim is one which can be determined with exactness from the agreement between the parties, or by arithmetical process, or by the application of definite rules of law.”); see also Ortiz Oil Co. v. Geyer, 138 Tex. 373 , 159 S.W.2d 494, 497 (1942) (concluding that demand of r

2009See Walton v. First Nat'l Bank of Trenton , 956 S.W.2d 647, 651 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1997, pet. denied) (noting claims for title to or possession of property need not be presented to administrator before filing a suit for those claims); Connelly v. Paul , 731 S.W.2d 657, 660 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (noting claim for title to or possession of property need not be presented to and rejected by administrator); Lusk v. Mintz , 625 S.W.2d 774, 776 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ) (same) (quoting Furse, Claims Practice In Probate Matters , 34 Tex. B.J.

2007As stated in Prather v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Dallas, 582 S.W.2d 903, 906 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.): The old common law rule which has been followed in Texas since early times is as follows: The mere payment of part of a debt which is undisputed is not a sufficient consideration to support a promise to accept the same in full payment of the debt, and does not bar the creditor’s suit to recover the balance. 2 Stated conversely, either an unliquidated claim or a good faith dispute as to liability on a liquidated claim furnishes sufficient consideration to support an accord and

1998Clements v. Chajkowski, 146 Tex. 408 , 208 S.W.2d 841, 843 (1948).

1998Clements v. Chajkowski, 146 Tex. 408 , 208 S.W.2d 841, 843 (1948).

1990First Dallas Petroleum, Inc. v. Hawkins, 727 S.W.2d 640, 645 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1987, no writ); First National Bank of Irving v. Shockley, 663 S.W.2d 685, 688 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1983, no writ); see also, McKanna v. Edgar, 388 S.W.2d 927, 929-30 (Tex.1965).

1990First Dallas Petroleum, Inc. v. Hawkins, 727 S.W.2d 640, 645 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, no writ); First National Bank of Irving v. Shockley, 663 S.W.2d 685, 688 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no writ); see also, McKanna v. Edgar, 388 S.W.2d 927, 929-30 (Tex.1965).

1990First Dallas Petroleum, Inc. v. Hawkins, 727 S.W.2d 640, 645 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1987, no writ); First National Bank of Irving v. Shockley, 663 S.W.2d 685, 688 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1983, no writ); see also, McKanna v. Edgar, 388 S.W.2d 927, 929-30 (Tex.1965).

1990First Dallas Petroleum, Inc. v. Hawkins, 727 S.W.2d 640, 645 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, no writ); First National Bank of Irving v. Shockley, 663 S.W.2d 685, 688 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no writ); see also, McKanna v. Edgar, 388 S.W.2d 927, 929-30 (Tex.1965).