# White Knight Dev., LLC v. Simmons Supreme Court of Texas, No. 23-0868 **White Knight Dev., LLC v. Simmons, No. 23-0868 (Tex. June 13, 2025). Holding: An equitable monetary award is permissible alongside specific performance within narrow limits, and the court of appeals erred by reversing the whole award without separating recoverable from unrecoverable expenses.** Practice areas: real property, breach of contract ## Key issues - Although specific performance and damages are alternative remedies, a trial court may award an equitable monetary sum alongside specific performance of a real-estate contract to place the parties where they would have been had the contract been performed on time, limited to expenses directly traceable to the delay, foreseeable at contracting, commercially reasonable, and, where the seller holds the land, incurred in the care and custody of the property. - The court of appeals erred by deleting the entire $308,136.14 monetary award because the trial court called it "actual damages/consequential damages" without separating recoverable property-related delay expenses from unrecoverable ones such as business-operating loan interest and taxes on other properties, so the Court remanded for that review. ## Factual History In 2015 White Knight Development, LLC contracted to buy land in a Bryan subdivision from Dick and Julie Simmons for $400,000; because subdivision restrictions could interfere with its plans, the parties added a "buy-back" provision letting White Knight require the Simmonses to repurchase the property at the same price if the restrictions were reinstated before January 1, 2018. The sale closed in May 2016, residents voted to extend the restrictions in October 2016, White Knight invoked the buy-back, and the Simmonses did not repurchase within forty-five days (Opinion, PDF pp. 2-3). ## Procedural History White Knight sued for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, seeking specific performance and delay-related damages; it testified it defaulted on its lender loan, paid forbearance fees, and took on other loans. After a bench trial the trial court ordered the Simmonses to repurchase the property for $400,000 and awarded $308,136.14 in "[a]dditional actual damages/consequential damages," itemized as property-related expenses, taxes and penalties, and operating-loan and credit-card interest. The Tenth Court of Appeals (Waco) deleted the monetary award, holding no statement showed it was equitable (703 S.W.3d 136). The Court heard argument March 18, 2025 (Opinion, PDF pp. 1, 5). ## Issues Presented Whether the trial court could award both specific performance and a monetary award for delay-related expenses (Opinion, PDF p. 2). ## Legal Arguments **White Knight (Petitioner):** the monetary award compensates for costs caused by the Simmonses' delay in performing and is permissible alongside specific performance. **Simmonses (Respondents):** specific performance and damages are alternatives, and the award was legal damages the trial court could not award in addition (Opinion, PDF pp. 6-8). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case Not applicable to the Court's decision; the opinion does not recite the petition's cert-worthiness arguments. ## Practice Area Tags real-property, breach-of-contract ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Petition for review from the Tenth Court of Appeals after a bench trial; argued March 18, 2025 (Opinion, PDF pp. 1, 7). ## Amicus Involvement None noted ## Holding An equitable monetary award is permissible alongside specific performance within narrow limits, and the court of appeals erred by reversing the whole award without separating recoverable from unrecoverable expenses (Opinion, PDF pp. 2, 11-12, 17). ## Standard of Review Whether a monetary award may accompany specific performance is a legal question reviewed de novo, while the contours of an equitable award are within the trial court's discretion (Opinion, PDF p. 7). ## Court's Reasoning Texas courts of appeals have consistently permitted, in narrow circumstances, payment of expenses incurred because performance was late, which "equalizes any losses occasioned by the delay," and the Court joined other states and the Restatement and Corbin in endorsing that remedy. The award is not breach damages and does not violate the one-satisfaction rule. Expenses must be directly traceable to the breach, excluding any expense White Knight would have incurred if performance had been timely, foreseeable at contracting as a category, and commercially reasonable, borrowing from the UCC's incidental-damages concept, and for a seller in possession must relate to the care and custody of the disputed property. Property taxes and interest on the Simmons property after the deadline may qualify, but business-operating interest and taxes on other properties are too attenuated (Opinion, PDF pp. 7-17). The Simmonses' argument that they were not estopped from asserting the restrictions had expired was not before the Court because they filed no petition (Opinion, PDF p. 7 n.2). ## Disposition Court of appeals' judgment reversed in part and case remanded to that court to review the monetary award under the announced principles (Opinion, PDF p. 17). ## Vote Breakdown Opinion of the Court by Justice Huddle (Opinion, PDF p. 1). --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/23-0868. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.