### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 14 -C V

______________________________ TH OM AS C . CA TE AN D PA TSY CA TE , App e lla nts V. MI CHAEL

J . WOODS, Appellee

On Appea l from the 6th J udicial District Court

Fa nnin County , Texas Trial Court No. 37571

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Opinion by

J ustice Carte rWoods create d a sepa rate proposed c ontrac t for the sa le of proper ty B providing for se ller 1 financ ing. It was not retur ned to him, and he did not see a signe d copy of it until i t was produc ed duri ngdis c ov e ry . T om t e sti fi e d h e ma de c ha ng e s to the pr op os e d c on tr a c t, b ut n e ve r d e liv e re d th is contra ct due to conf

licts with W oods. The trial c ourt did not find there wa s a sepa rate written contra ct for sale with re g ard to prope rty B. I n any event, this unexecuted c ontrac t for sale was conting ent upon closing , at which time Woods was to pa y $10,000.00. The closing never occur red, and the pr oposed contra ct terminate d. 2 OPI NI ON This appea l arises from the gra nt of specific performanc e and awa rd of damag es whe re no enfor cea ble contra ct e xis te d

. We reve rse the tr ial court' s judgme nt and re nder judg ment that appellee take nothing

. I. F ac tu al Bac kgr ound I n May of 2002, Thomas C. C ate and Patsy Cate si g ned a contra ct t o sell their fa rm and ra nch l an d , co n s i s t i n g o f t wo t ra ct s o f l an d , t o M i ch ae l J

. W o o d s o nap p ro v al o f t h i rd -p ar t y fi n an ci n g. Closing was to oc cur July 31, 2002. The c ontrac t stated it would terminate if suc cessf ul financing

was no t ob tain e d b y

that c los ingdate . I t is un dis pu te d th a t Woo ds fa ile d to ob ta in f ina nc ingto purcha se both trac ts. Ne ve rt he le ss, the Ca te s p ro vid e d part ia l sel le r fi na nc ingand a llo we d Wo od s to purc ha se ha lf of their f arm a nd ranc h land, hereinafte r called proper ty A. I n order

to convey proper ty A, the par ties enter ed into a sepa

rate contra ct for that tract a lone. Althoug h Tom "dis cu s s ed t h e sale of the pr op e rt y fo r a numbe r of y e ars ," no wr itt e n ag re e me nt wa s eve r ma de to s e ll the se c on d h a lf of the ir land , h e re ina ft e r r e fe rr e d to a s pr op e rt y B

. At on e po int , To m pr op os e d to se ll p ro pe rt y B on ly if 13

it was seller f

inance d. The Cates require d seller f inancingfor tax purposes and be cause Patsy neede d a monthly

income af

ter re tirement. Wo o d s b ec am e elig ible for a United States Depa

rtment of Ag riculture (USDA) far

m ow nership loan September 14, 2004. Be cause the USDA did not rece ive any sales contr act f

or prope rty

B, the loan application was neve r proce ssed and the money was ne ver

rec eived. Whil e Tom wa s still considering the s ale, he allowed W oods onto proper ty B in 2004 without Patsy ' s knowledg e or c o n s en t
. Tom said to Woods "the key s are y ours, the g ates a re ope n, I ' ve

a lr e a dy mov e d th e c a lve s. . . . g o to tow n w ithit. " Woo ds mov e d h is c a ttl e fr om pr op e rt y A o nto pr op e rt y B , p lante d ha

y , and sp e nt mon e y on a dd iti on a l c a ttl e , fe rt ili zer , a c or ra l, a nd e qu ipm e nt t o

car ry out farming and ranching activities. No money was e ver pa id to the Cates for Woods' use of proper ty B. Patsy testified she never made any ag ree ment and did not want to sell proper ty B. She f ound out Woods was using the proper ty and "ha d a heate d discussion" with Tom. W oods spoke with Tom abo ut sel li ng th e pro pert y "a m in im um of at lea st ten ti mes " af ter recei vi ng th e key s to pro pert y B. P a t s y a l s o c l a i m e d

t h a tW o o d s h a d

s e v e r a l d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h h e r t o c o n v i n c e h e r t o s e l l t h e p r o p e rt y. Woods admit ted " they

still never

came back w ith the contrac t." He testified that in January of 2005, "Mr . Cate and I

had had dinner t hat day , in J anuar y , and talking about he wa s try ing to g et his wife to be more f

riendl y an d ch ang e her

position t o g o ahea d and finish the dea l." That same month, Patsy called Woods and told him they wer e not g oing to se ll the property

.4

I n September of

that y ear , afte r several attempts to remove Woods from the proper ty , Tom

m o v e d t h e c a t t l e t o p r o p e rt y A , p l o w e d u p t h e g r a s s , an d

p l a c e d l o c k s an d c h a i n s o nt h e p r o p e rt y B g ate. On Aug ust 24, 2006, Woods filed suit for specific perf ormanc e based on the orig inal 2 002 contra ct for sale, neg lige nce, trespass, and fra ud in " their intent to allow [W oods] t o purcha se" proper ty B. II. P roce dural History The Cat e s f

il e d a mo ti o n f

o r s u mm ar

y ju d g me n t ar g u in g th a t s p e c if ic p e r f o r ma n c e was

un a va ila ble be c a us e the or ig ina l con tr a c t wa s ter min a te d an d the re wa s no wr itt e n co ntr a c t f or sa le of prope rty

B. The y also asser

ted that t he st atute of limit ations barr ed sui t arising from the origina l contra ct and that the statute of fr auds pre vented a ny alleg ed ora l co n t rac t from beingenfor cea ble. Summary judgme nt was denie d. After a benc h trial, the trial court g rante d specific perf ormanc e in favor of

Woods, provided that he pa y the purc ha se pr ic e fo r pr op e rt y B , an d als o aw ard e d him $22 ,0 00 .0 0 in a c tua l da ma g e s, $2 0, 00 0. 00 in punit ive dama g e s fo r the Ca te s' tr e sp a ss int o pr op e rt y B , $ 20 ,0 00 .0 0 in

a tto rn e y ' s f

e e s, and costs. Th e fo l l o wi ng conclusions of law , derive d from the tria l court' s findings of fac t, are

ma te ri a l to dis po sit ion

of thi s a pp e a l: 1. The pa

rties enter ed a va lid and binding a g ree ment dated May 21, 2002, on the entire a cre ag e . . . . 2. The de adlin e d at es i n t h e above -re fer ence d contra ct wer e modified by the actions and ina ctions of the par ties upon which the Plaintiff rea sonably relied to his detriment.B e c a us e our re so lut ion of the se tw o is su e s is dis po sit ive of thi s a pp e a l, w e do no t ne e d to 2 addre ss the Cates' rema ining points of er ror. 5 3. Plaintiff tender ed all conditions prec edent to the contra ct and tender ed to the Def endants the a g ree d upon consideration.

. . . . 5

. D e f

e n d an ts g a v e Pl a in ti f

f p e r mi s s io n to o c c u

p y , use, control, maintain, manag e and posse ss [ proper ty B] on or about July

2004. 6. De fe nd ants fa lse ly re pr e se nte d that the y wo uld c on ve y a ll of the ir ri g ht, tit le and intere sts in [ proper

ty B] to Plainti ff.

. . . . 8

. The De fenda nts [ sic] conduct .

. . c o n s ti tuted fa lse and materia l misrepre sentations of mater ial fac ts.

. . . . 12. Plaintiff rea sonably and detr imentally

relied u p on Def

endants [sic] repr esentations and misreprese ntations. Am on g oth e r p o i n t s o f e r r o r h i g h l i g h t e d o n a

p p e a l , t h e C a t e s ar gu e t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r r e d in g ranting specific perf

ormanc e on the Ma

y 2002 contra ct bec ause it wa s terminated. The y also argue that no oral c ontrac t was found to exist. W e ag ree . 2 I I I . St a nd a r d o f R e v ie w "Fi n d i n gs o f f

ac ti na c as e t ri edt o t h e co u rt h av e th e sa m e fo rc e an d d i gn i t y as t h e f i n d i n gs mad e by a ju ry in it s v erdi ct. " Ay e rs v . M itc he ll , 167 S.W .3d 924, 927 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.). We ar e bound b y t h em u n l es s t he contr ary is established as a matter of law , or if no evidence s u p p o rts the finding

. McG alliard v. Kuhlmann , 722 S.W .2d 694, 696 (Tex. 1986). Be cause we de fer

to a trial court' s resolution of factual is sues, we do not substi tute our finding s of fac t as long as evide nce in the r ecor d is sufficient to sustai n t h e t rial cour t's f indings. W

alker v

. Pack er , 82 7 S. W.2 d 8 33 , 8 40 (T e x. 19 92 ); Ay e rs , 167 S.W .3d at 928.6

"O n the other ha

nd, since a

trial court ha s no discretion in deter mining wha t the law is or app ly in g the l aw t o th e fact s, a tr ial cou rt 's con clu si on s o f l aw are r evi ewed de n ov o. " Duddlesten v. Klemm , No. 06-08-00106-CV, 2009 WL 635153, at *3 (Te x . App.—Texarkana Mar. 13, 2009,

no pe t.) (m e m. o p) ; Ay e rs , 1 67 S.W. 3d a t 92 8; see W

alker , 827 S.W .2d at 841. IV. Trial Court Erre d in Gr anting S pecific Pe rform ance Where No Contrac t Existed Specific pe rfor

mance is an equitable remedy that can be awa rded upon showinga bre ach of contra ct. Stafford v. S. Vanity Magazine, Inc

. , 2 31 S.W. 3d 53 0, 53 5 ( Te x. Ap p. —D a lla s 2 00 7, pe t. d en i ed ) ( ci t i n g Kress v. Soules , 152 Tex. 595, 261 S.W .2d 703, 704 (1953)) . Thus, "[i]n pursuing

an a c tio n f

or sp e c if ic pe rf or manc e , th e fi rs t qu e sti on

is w he the r t

he re is a n e nf or c e a ble c on tr a c t to be per formed." Lynx Ex

ploration &Prod. Co. v. 4-Sight Operating Co. , 8 9 1 S. W. 2 d 7 8 5 , 7 8 7 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

1995, writ deni ed ). T o be enf orce able a

nd comply

with the statute of fr auds, a

c on tr a c t f or the sa le of

re a l pr op e rt

y mus t be in w ri tin g and sig ne d by the pe rs on to be c ha rg e d w ith the ag ree ment. T EX . B US . & C OM . C ODE ANN . § 2 6

. 0 1 ( V e r n o n2 0 0 9 )

. B e f

o r e a c o u rt c ano r d er specific perf

ormanc e of a contract for the sale of land, there must be a written a g ree ment expressing the essential ter

ms of the contra ct with rea sonable c erta inty

. Cha mb e rs v . P ru itt , 241 S.W .3d 679, 68 7 (T e x. Ap p. —D a lla s 2 00 7, no pe t.) ; Joplin v. Nystel , 2 12 S.W. 2d 86 9 ( Te x. Civ . App .—

Am a ri llo 1948, no writ) (" A cour

t will not d ec ree specif

ic per formanc e of c ontrac t for sale of land nor enter tain suit to re cover

damag es for

brea ch ther eof, unle ss a written a g ree ment or a me morandum require d by

the Statute of Fr auds expresses the e ssential terms of the c ontrac t with such cer tainty andTh e tr ia l court state d, " Th e May 21 , 200 2 co ntr a c t as mod if ie d will be e nf

or c e d to pe rm it 3 P lai nt if f t o co mp let e th e pu rcha se o f [ pro pert y B] ." 7 clar ity th a t it ma

y b e u n d e r s to o d w it

h o u t r e c o u r s e to p ar o le [s ic ] e v id e n c e o f th e in te n ti o n s of the parties." ). Also, it is "a g ener al rule of equity jurisprudenc e in T exas that a par ty must show that he has complied with his obligations under the c o n t ra ct t o be entitled to spec ific per formanc e." DiGiuseppe v . Lawl er , 269 S.W .3d 588, 594 (Tex. 2008). Th e re wa s n o s e pa

rate wr itten con tr act fo r t he sa le of

pr op e rt y B . In o rd e ri ngsp e c if

ic perf ormanc e, the tria l court re lied on the 2002 contra ct for sa le, which wa s clea rly conting ent upon Woods obt aining third-par ty financ ing f

or the va lue of both p ro p er t i es A and B. A condition 3 prec eden t i s o ne t hat mu st be p erfo rm ed b efor e "a right can accru e to enfo rce an o bl igat io n. " Pe rl

v . P atr izi , 2 0 S

. W

. 3 d

7 6 , 8 0 (T ex . Ap p . — T ex ar k an a 2 0 0 0 , p et
. d en i ed ) ( ci t i n g Centex Corp. v. Dalton , 840 S.W .2d 952, 956 (Tex. 1992)). The 2002 orig inal contra ct stated, " I f financ ing . . . or

a ssumpt ion

a pp ro va l is no t ob ta ine d w ith in 6 5 d ay s a ft e r t he e ff e c tiv e date he re of

, this c on tr a c t w ill terminate . . . ." "T he use of the term ' if' connotes a condition pr ece dent that conditions perfor mance rat her t han a cov enan t o r pr om is e." Shin-Con Dev. Corp. v. I .P. Invs., Ltd. , 270 S.W .3d 759, 766–67 (T e x. Ap p. —Da lla s 2 00 8, pe t. d e nie d) ; Knox v. Townes , 470 S.W .2d 290, 291 (Tex. Civ. App.

—Wa c o 1 9 7 1 , n o w r it ) ( a c o n tr a c t c o n ti n g e n t o nf

in an c in g c o n ta in s a

c o n d it io np r e c e dent). Since financ ing w as not obtained by the closing date, the c ontrac t term i n at ed b y its own terms. See W

hite v. Hughs , 867 S.W .2d 846, 851 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1993, no writ) (" When enter ing int o a co n trac t for the pur chase of re alty , the par ties may provide for

reposse ssion of the8

proper ty or ca ncellation of the sal e u p o n brea ch." ). This termination and a bandonment of the orig inal contra ct was f

urther e vidence d by

the par ties' execution of a sepa

rate written contra ct for sale of pr operty A at a later date. The trial court e rre d as a matter of law in finding Woods

c omp le te d a ll c on dit ion s p re c e de nt, and in fi nd ingthe 20 02 te rm inate d c on tr a c t va lid a ft e r i ts termination. The trial c ourt found that the written contra ct enter ed May 21, 2002, was a

valid and binding ag ree ment for the sa le of both trac ts of land and " will be enfor ced to permit Plaintiff to complete the purcha se of [proper

ty B]." E ven thoug h Woods pled alternatively that an ora l contrac t was ente red into by the parties, at trial Woods asse rted that he wa s entitled to specific pe rfor mance based on a written contra ct he pr epar ed for the last 100 ac res a

nd sent to the Cat es , b u t wh ich was ne ver returne d. Woods di d not present e vidence that the par ties had ente red a separ ate oral contra ct, and the trial cour

t made no finding that the par ties entere d an ora l contrac t. Here , the cour t entere d sp e c if ic fi nd ing s of fa c t and c on c lus ion s of law, so the re is no imp lie d fi nd ing of an o ra l a g re e me nt. I f finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law a re not re quested or f

iled, the appellate court presumes the trial court found all fac t que stions in support of i t s j u d gm en t
. IKB Indus. v

. Pr o- Lin e Cor p ., 938 S.W .2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1997). F ur the r, Woo ds ' arg

ume nt to this Court is pr e mis e d on th e tr ia l c ourt ' s f ind ing s o f a

" va lid and binding written contract" which was modified, as t o deadlines, by the ac tions and inactions of the par ties. There fore , since there is no finding that an oral contra ct to sell proper ty B e x isted, the9

argument that an ora l ag ree ment may be enfor ced without compliance with the statute of fra uds on the doctrine of par

tial perfor mance is inapplicable. At most, the finding of the trial court was that the orig inal written contra ct was to be enfor ced beca use the pa rties by their " actions and ina ctions" modified the deadlines in the contra ct. But ther e is no finding that a

n entirely new or al contra ct was e ntere d that could be e nforc ed; neither did the tr ia l c ourt fi nd that the pa

rt ie s had or a lly a g re e d to cha ng e the or ig ina l pur c ha se pr ic e . T he purc ha se price of t he original contract for bot h trac ts was $269,500.00, or a pproxi mately

$1,300.00 per a cre , wher eas the judgme nt enforc es the c ontrac t at $1,000.00 p er a cre . The only modification that the tr ia l c ourt fo un d p e rt a ine d to " de a dli ne s" in t he or ig ina l c on tr a c t. E ve n if the pla int if

f c ou ld e sta

bli sh all elements to specific ally enfor ce an oral contra ct, t hat would be inapplicable here as the judgment attempted to enf

orce the orig inal written contra ct, but on terms not found in that contra ct. V. The Tr ialCo ur t E r r e d in F indin g F r aud and T r e spa ss Next, the trial court found that the Cate s defr auded Woods by "f alsely repr e s e nt[ ing] that they would convey

all o f their r ight, title and inter est in" pr operty B. The court c oncluded that Woods

re a so na bly a c te d u po n th e mis re pr e se ntatio ns c on ta ine d w ith in h is p e tit ions. Whe n f ra ud c la ims arise o u t o f an a ll e g e d c o n tr a c t w h ic h is u n e n f o r c e a b le u n d e r th e s tatute o f f

r a u d s , th e s tatute of fra uds bars the fra

ud claims as we ll as the contra ct claims. W e ak ly v . E as t , 900 S.W .2d 755, 758–59 ( T e x . A p p . — C o rp u s C h ri s t i 1 9 9 5 , wr i td en i ed ) ( ci t i n g Nag le v . Na gle , 6 3 3 S. W. 2 d

7 9 6 , 8 00-01 (T e x. 19 82 ) ( e nf

or c ing a pr omi se to c on ve y land de sp ite the statut e of

fr a ud s w ou ld r e nd e r t

he statut e10

me anin g le ss) ); Haase v . Glazner , 62 S.W .3d 795, 799 (Tex. 2001) ) (" I f in the fac e of the Statute of Fr auds, we permit [ p l ai n tiff' s] fraud claim to the extent he see ks to recove r the be nefit of the

un e nf or c e a ble ba rg a in, we de pr ive the S tat ut e of any e ff e c t." ). B e c a

us e the re wa s n o e nf

or c e a ble contra ct to co n v ey l an d , the trial cour t erre d as a matter of law in finding the Cates def raude d Woods. Ne xt, th e re wa s a fi nd ing that Cate s tr e sp a sse d o nto Woo ds ' pr op e rt y wh e n mo vin g Woo ds ' cattle f rom proper

ty B to prope rty

A. Tre spass occ urs wh en o n e en t er s another' s land without consent. Cai n v. Ru st I

nd us . Cl e an ing

Se rv s. , 969 S.W .2d 464, 470 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998, pe t. d e nie d) . B e c a

us e Woo ds fa ile d to e sta

bli show ne rs hip of

pr op e rt y B , th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in finding trespass. VI. Woods Was Not Entitled to Recove r Monet ary Dam ages "It is well establi s h ed i n T ex as t hat no re cover y is allowed unless liability has bee n est abl is hed ." Fire Ins. Exc hange v. Sullivan , 192 S.W .3d 99, 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2006 , p et
. d enied) (quoting Turner v. Lone Star Indus., Inc. , 7 3 3 S. W. 2 d 2 4 2 , 2 4 6 ( T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1s t D ist .] 19 87 , w ri t r e f' d n .r .e .) ); see also Schindler v . Austwell Farmers Coop. , 841 S.W .2d 853, 854 (Tex. 1992). Da m age fi ndings in the a bsence of liability

finding s are immaterial. Fire Ins. Ex change , 1 92 S.W. 3d a t 10 7; Ba sic Ca

pital Mg mt . v . D y ne xCom me rc ial

, Inc. , 254 S.W .3d 508, 513 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pe t.). Be ca u s e we find W oods was not entitled t o p re v ail on any of his alleg ed ca

uses of a ction, he wa s not entitled to consequential or11

punitive damag es or attorney ' s fee s. VI I. Co nc lusi on For these rea sons, w e reve rse the tr ial court' s judgme nt and re nder judg ment that Woods t ake

n o t h i n g.

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: Aug ust 31, 2009 Date D ecide d: October 21, 2009