Samuel Adam Aflalo v. Devin Lamar Harris and Meghan Theresa Harris, 05-24-01283-CV, October 20, 2026.
On appeal from 95th District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Synopsis
When a necessary damages question goes unanswered because it was conditioned on a favorable liability answer, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 279 treats the unanswered question as an omitted issue if the claimant did not object to the condition or request an unconditional submission. If the trial court makes no written finding, the omitted issue is deemed found in support of the judgment, and that deemed finding must be upheld when supported by some evidence.
Relevance to Family Law
The opinion arises from a real-estate contract dispute, but its charge-preservation rule applies directly to jury trials involving divorce-related claims, property characterization and valuation disputes, reimbursement theories, fiduciary-duty and fraud claims, premarital or partition agreements, and conservatorship issues within the jury’s statutory authority. A family-law litigant who establishes—or contends that the evidence conclusively establishes—a predicate issue cannot assume that an appellate court will remand for trial on an unanswered downstream issue. If the downstream question is conditioned on an adverse answer and counsel does not separately challenge that condition or request a question the jury must answer regardless of the predicate, Rule 279 may produce a deemed finding supporting the judgment.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Samuel Adam Aflalo and Devin and Meghan Harris entered into a contract for the sale of Aflalo’s residence. The Harrises did not close. Aflalo appeared at closing, signed the deed, placed it in escrow, demanded performance, and later sued for breach of contract. After selling the property to a third party, he pursued money damages rather than specific performance.
At trial, the principal disputes concerned breach, benefit-of-the-bargain damages, mitigation, and election of remedies. Aflalo moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the Harrises’ breach had been established as a matter of law. The trial court denied the motion.
The charge first asked whether the Harrises failed to comply with the contract. The damages question instructed the jury to answer only if it first answered the breach question “Yes.” Aflalo objected to submitting breach, maintaining that breach had been conclusively established. He did not separately object to conditioning damages on a favorable breach answer, however, and he did not request an alternative damages question that the jury would have to answer regardless of its breach finding.
The jury answered “No” on breach and therefore did not answer damages. The trial court rendered judgment for the Harrises, awarded their attorney’s fees, and ordered the earnest money released to Aflalo.
On appeal, Aflalo argued that breach was established as a matter of law and that the Harrises’ mitigation and election-of-remedies defenses lacked evidentiary support. He sought rendition on liability and a remand for a new trial on damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
The Fifth Court of Appeals did not decide whether breach was conclusively established. Instead, it held that Rule 279 independently required affirmance because the unanswered damages issue was treated as omitted, no written damages finding had been requested, and some evidence supported a deemed finding of no damages.
Issues Decided
- Whether Rule 279 applies when a jury does not answer a necessary issue because the issue was conditionally submitted.
- Whether an objection to submitting the predicate breach question also preserves a complaint that the damages question was improperly conditioned on the jury’s breach answer.
- Whether the claimant was required to object to the conditional damages instruction or request an alternative submission requiring the jury to answer damages.
- Whether the unanswered damages question should be deemed found in a manner supporting the judgment.
- Whether some evidence supported a deemed finding of zero benefit-of-the-bargain damages.
- Whether the court needed to reach the legal-sufficiency challenges concerning breach, mitigation, and election of remedies.
Rules Applied
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 279 governs omitted elements and issues left unanswered by a jury. When one or more elements of a claim or defense are submitted but a necessarily referable element is omitted without a proper request or objection, the parties are treated as having waived a jury determination of the omitted element. The trial court may make a written finding on the omitted element if requested before judgment. If it does not, the omitted element is deemed found in the manner necessary to support the judgment, provided some evidence supports that deemed finding.
The court relied principally on the following authorities:
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 279, which addresses omitted issues, deemed findings, and charge preservation.
- Little Rock Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. Dunn, 222 S.W.2d 985 (Tex. 1949), recognizing that an unanswered conditionally submitted issue may be treated as omitted and that the party needing the finding must object or request an appropriate submission.
- Ramos v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 784 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. 1990), requiring an appellate court to uphold a deemed finding when some evidence supports it.
- Strauss v. LaMark, 366 S.W.2d 555 (Tex. 1963), addressing Rule 279’s application to unanswered and omitted issues.
- Harmes v. Arklatex Corp., 615 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. 1981), applying omitted-issue principles when a conditional submission prevents a jury answer.
- Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Low, 79 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002), explaining that Rule 279 is designed to avoid remands caused by charge omissions and depends on the parties’ diligence.
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002), discussing deemed findings and the requirement that they have evidentiary support.
- USAA Texas Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. 2018), recognizing damages as an essential element on which the claimant bears the burden.
- Goldman v. Olmstead, 414 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. denied), stating the benefit-of-the-bargain measure applicable to the underlying contract claim.
A critical distinction drove the decision: objecting to the submission of the predicate issue is not necessarily the same as objecting to the conditional submission of the downstream issue. The objection must inform the trial court that, even if it rejects the party’s position on the predicate issue, the downstream question still must be answered.
Application
Aflalo needed a damages finding because damages were an essential element of his contract claim. The charge, however, directed the jury to answer damages only if it first found that the Harrises breached the contract. When the jury found no breach, it followed the instruction and left damages unanswered.
Aflalo preserved his contention that breach was conclusively established by objecting to the submission of the breach question. That objection did not preserve the distinct contention that the jury should answer damages regardless of its breach answer. It did not advise the trial court that, if the court submitted breach over Aflalo’s objection, Aflalo alternatively wanted an unconditional damages question.
Because Aflalo neither objected to the conditional instruction nor tendered an alternative submission, the unanswered damages issue was treated as omitted under Rule 279. Neither side then requested a written trial-court finding on damages. The damages issue was therefore deemed found in the manner necessary to support the take-nothing judgment—a finding that Aflalo sustained no recoverable damages.
The record contained some evidence supporting that deemed finding. The contract price was $1.45 million. An appraiser testified that the property was worth $1.525 million shortly before the scheduled closing. A subsequent purchaser testified that the property’s value was between $1.4 million and $1.6 million and that her later $1.13 million purchase was substantially below market value. Because benefit-of-the-bargain damages depended on the difference between the contract price and the property’s market value at the time of breach, this evidence permitted a finding that the property’s market value equaled or exceeded the contract price.
That evidentiary basis was sufficient under Rule 279’s “some evidence” standard. Accordingly, even if Aflalo were correct that breach had been conclusively established, the deemed no-damages finding independently supported the judgment.
Holding
The court held that an unanswered conditionally submitted damages question is treated as an omitted issue under Rule 279 when the party bearing the burden fails to object to the conditional submission or request a question requiring the jury to answer damages regardless of its predicate finding.
The court further held that Aflalo’s objection to submitting breach did not preserve a complaint about the conditional submission of damages. The two complaints sought different relief and required separate presentation to the trial court.
Because no written damages finding was requested, Rule 279 deemed the omitted damages issue found in the manner necessary to support the judgment. The record contained some evidence that the property’s market value equaled or exceeded the contract price, supporting a deemed finding of no benefit-of-the-bargain damages.
The deemed no-damages finding independently required affirmance. The court therefore did not decide whether breach was established as a matter of law or whether the mitigation and election-of-remedies defenses were legally sufficient.
Practical Application
The central practice point is that counsel must review every conditional instruction from the perspective of the verdict that would be needed after a successful appeal. Preserving error on a predicate question does not necessarily preserve the right to obtain a jury answer on a downstream question.
In a divorce involving a disputed marital agreement, for example, a damages, valuation, or property question may be conditioned on the jury finding that the agreement is unenforceable or that a party failed to comply with it. If counsel contends that enforceability or liability is established as a matter of law, counsel should not stop with an objection to the predicate question. Counsel must also determine whether every necessary downstream issue will be answered if the jury rejects that position.
The same concern arises with tort and contract claims joined in a divorce. A fraud, fiduciary-duty, conversion, or contract-damages question may be conditioned on an adverse liability answer. If the jury never reaches damages, an appellate victory on liability may not produce a remand for damages. Rule 279 may instead supply a deemed zero-damages finding.
Property cases present a related risk. Questions concerning characterization, tracing, valuation, reimbursement, or offsets may be arranged in a conditional sequence. Although not every property issue is a “damages” issue, an unanswered question necessary to a submitted theory may trigger omitted-element analysis. Counsel should identify which findings are binding jury determinations, which are advisory, and which remain for the court under the Texas Family Code.
Conservatorship charges require the same discipline. Texas Family Code section 105.002 defines the matters on which a jury verdict is binding and limits the use of juries on other issues. When a binding geographic-restriction or conservatorship question is conditioned on another answer, counsel should evaluate whether the jury must answer it independently to protect the client’s appellate position. Rule 279 does not expand the jury’s statutory authority, but it can govern the consequences of failing to obtain an answer on an issue properly within that authority.
Finally, post-verdict review matters. If a necessary issue was omitted or left unanswered, counsel should immediately determine whether to request an express written finding before judgment. An express finding may not be favorable, but it prevents the issue from being resolved silently through a deemed finding and creates a defined ruling for appellate review.
Checklists
Audit the Conditional Questions
- Identify every “if you answered” instruction in the proposed charge.
- Trace each possible answer through all downstream questions.
- Determine which questions the client must have answered to obtain relief.
- Test the charge against an adverse answer on every predicate issue.
- Ask whether a successful appeal on the predicate issue would still leave a necessary element unanswered.
- Separate binding jury issues from advisory issues and matters reserved to the court.
Preserve an Unconditional Downstream Finding
- Object specifically to conditioning the downstream question on the disputed predicate.
- Explain why the predicate has been established as a matter of law, if applicable.
- State that the downstream question must be answered even if the jury answers the predicate adversely.
- Tender a substantially correct alternative question or instruction in writing.
- Obtain an express ruling on both the objection and the requested submission.
- Confirm that the objection and ruling are reported or otherwise included in the appellate record.
Protect Family-Law Property Claims
- Map each characterization, tracing, valuation, reimbursement, offset, and damages issue.
- Identify who bears the burden of proof on each issue.
- Determine whether an omitted issue is necessarily referable to a ground submitted to the jury.
- Avoid conditioning valuation questions in a manner that could prevent a finding needed after appellate review.
- Preserve separate complaints concerning the predicate question and the downstream condition.
- Confirm whether the requested finding belongs to the jury or to the trial court.
Protect Joined Tort and Contract Claims
- Obtain findings on liability, causation, each recoverable damages category, and any required segregations.
- Review whether actual damages are predicates for exemplary damages or attorney’s fees.
- Do not assume that a liability objection preserves an unanswered damages issue.
- Request independent damages findings when liability is claimed to be conclusively established.
- Address affirmative defenses without allowing them to prevent answers on the claimant’s essential elements.
- Preserve complaints concerning both the wording and the conditional structure of the charge.
Conduct the Post-Verdict Rule 279 Review
- Compare the verdict with every element of each claim and defense.
- Identify all questions the jury left unanswered.
- Determine whether an unanswered conditional question will be treated as omitted.
- Evaluate which deemed finding would support the anticipated judgment.
- Review the record for evidence supporting that deemed finding.
- Consider requesting a written finding on the omitted issue before judgment is rendered.
- Raise charge and deemed-finding issues in any appropriate post-judgment motion.
- Ensure that the charge conference, written requests, objections, rulings, and verdict are in the clerk’s and reporter’s records.
Citation
Aflalo v. Harris, No. 05-24-01283-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 20, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
The crossover mechanism is Rule 279’s treatment of unanswered conditional issues as omitted issues. When a family-law charge submits part of a claim, defense, or theory but places a necessary downstream question behind a predicate answer, the jury may never reach that downstream question. If the party who needs the finding does not object to the condition or request a submission requiring an answer, the party may waive a jury determination of the issue. Unless the trial court makes a requested written finding, the issue may then be deemed found in the manner supporting the judgment, subject only to a “some evidence” review.
That mechanism can arise when damages on a joined tort claim are conditioned on liability; valuation is conditioned on characterization; relief under a marital agreement is conditioned on enforceability or breach; or a conservatorship or geographic-restriction question is conditioned on another answer. The strategic response is procedural: identify the necessary downstream finding, make a specific objection to the conditional instruction, tender a substantially correct alternative submission, secure a ruling, and review the verdict for omitted or unanswered issues before judgment.
~~e2cf6c82-4a81-423a-99f6-59c21e7f1a45~~
Share this content: