Background
W&C Investments leased Suite B2 office space to Dizfruta ATX, LLC in 2019, with Jose Castilla executing a personal guarantee guaranteeing Dizfruta’s lease performance. In 2020, the parties amended the lease to add Suite B1, expanding the total rentable space to 3,520 square feet. Paragraph 6 of the Amendment explicitly stated that the personal guarantee “will remain in effect and will be applicable to the new Net Rentable Area of the Leased Premises.” Castilla signed the Amendment.
When Dizfruta stopped paying rent and abandoned the premises, W&C demanded $145,242.34 for unpaid rents through lease expiration, reletting commissions, and costs to remedy unauthorized modifications. In December 2024, W&C sued Castilla for breach of the personal guarantee, seeking damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees. Castilla was properly served but failed to answer or appear.
The trial court granted W&C’s default judgment motion in August 2025, awarding $151,018.14 in damages, $7,980 in attorney’s fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. Castilla filed a restricted appeal challenging whether the guarantee extended to the Amendment and whether evidence supported the damages.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the default judgment on two key grounds. First, interpreting the Amendment’s plain language, the court held that Castilla’s personal guarantee applied to the expanded lease. Paragraph 6’s express statement that the guarantee “will remain in effect and will be applicable to the new Net Rentable Area of the Leased Premises” clearly extended Castilla’s liability to both the original and amended lease obligations.
Second, on the sufficiency-of-evidence question, the court classified all damages as unliquidated (requiring proof rather than being calculable from documents alone) because the rent formula and repair amounts could not be determined solely from the written instruments. The court found that the property manager’s affidavit, which described the underlying facts, referenced the Summary of Rents Owed, and attached supporting documents (invoices, lease documents, demand letters), provided legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the $151,018.14 damages award. Similarly, the attorney’s affidavit with a detailed billing statement established reasonable attorney’s fees of $7,980.
Key Takeaways
- When a lease amendment expressly incorporates an existing personal guarantee and states it applies to the expanded premises, the guarantor remains liable for all obligations under both the original and amended leases.
- In default judgment proceedings for unliquidated damages, affidavits from the prevailing party combined with supporting documentation (invoices, contracts, billing statements) satisfy the legal and factual sufficiency standard.
- Attorney’s fees must be proven reasonable through competent evidence, even in default proceedings, and require testimony or documentation regarding the services rendered and prevailing rates.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on personal guarantee enforceability in commercial real estate transactions. Landlords can rely on personal guarantees that explicitly reference lease amendments and expanded premises—Castilla’s signature on the Amendment, combined with paragraph 6’s express statement that the guarantee applies to the “new Net Rentable Area,” firmly bound him to the modified lease. This protects landlords seeking to expand leased premises while maintaining guarantor security without requiring new guarantee documents.
The case also clarifies evidentiary standards in default judgments involving complex damages claims. Texas courts recognize that affidavits with attached documentation can establish unliquidated damages amounts when the affiant has personal knowledge and attaches supporting materials. This practical standard allows prevailing parties to prevail on default without requiring full evidentiary hearings when proper documentation is presented—but only if all damages are either liquidated or adequately supported by affidavit evidence, as the court emphasized by remanding any unliquidated portion without sufficient proof.