Three Claims, Zero Recovery

May 26, 2026

In Lone Star Concept Solutions d/b/a True Colors Painting v. Texas Green Realty, LLC, the Fifth Court affirmed a directed verdict for a property owner on a subcontractor’s breach-of-contract, promissory-estoppel, and quantum-meruit claims, all of which involved an alleged oral agreement that the owner would pay the subcontractor if the general contractor failed to pay within five days of the certificate of occupancy:

  • Contract. The oral agreement was “subject to the statute of frauds” as a suretyship — a promise to answer for the debt of another — and the Court rejected the subcontractor’s reference to section 26.01(b)(6) of the statute (the one-year performance provision) reasoning that whether the oral contract could have been performed within that timeframe was not relevant once the suretyship subsection applied.
  • Promissory estoppel. This doctrine carves out a statute of frauds exception only where the plaintiff shows a promise to sign a written agreement that would itself satisfy the statute. The record contained no such promise.
  • Quantum meruit. The subcontractor already had an express contract with the general contractor covering the same services and materials.

05-24-01286-CV (May 15, 2026)