### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-00-00578-CV
Susie Nelms

Gass, Appell ant
v. Luke Leon Cof

fee, Appellee

FROM THE COUN TY COUR T AT LAW N O. 1 OF

HAYS CO UNTY NO. 6123-C, HO NORABLE HO WARD S. WARNER II, JUDGE PRESIDING

T his case i

nvol ves a di spute between appel

la nt Susie Nel ms Gass an d appelle e Luke Le on Cof f eereg ard i ng the own ers hi p of a h ors e n am ed Du ran go. G as s, th

e ori gi na l own er of Du ran go, cl ai m s she al l owe d C of

f eeto tem pora ril y bor row the horse. Wh

en Cof f ee re f use d to return Du ran go, Gass sued

hi m f or re covery

of the hor se or, i n th e al tern ati ve , f ordamag es fo r c onve rsio n. Cof fee coun terclai med, al l egi ng b reach of contract by

Gas s or, i

n the al terna tiv e, a de claratory judg ment nam

in g Coff ee the righ

tful owner of Durango. Foll owing a jury trial , the tri al

court rendered judgm ent that Gass take not hi

ng on her clai

ms agai nstCo ffee, t hat Co ffee t ake not hingon his cl ai m f or breach of co nt ra ct , a nd de claring Co ffee t he r ight ful ow ner of D ur ango . As a re sult , t he
cour t ordered Gass to turn over any papers nece ssary

to refl ect Coffe e’s ownersh

ip of the h orse . Because we fi

nd the ev ide nce l egally and f actuall y s uff ic ie nt to support an enforce a ble agr eement b etw een Ga ss an d C of f ee to ex ch an ge h ors es , w e a f

f i rm th e tr i al cou rt’ s j udgm

en t.2 BACKGROUND Derek Ga ss , M s. Ga ss ’s t ee nag e s o n, pa rt icipa t es in ro de o eve nt s, pr incip ally ca lfroping, and often rode Durango duri ng these ev

ents. Coff

ee i s a professi

onal rodeo cl ownwho also partici patesi n rode o eve

nts, pri mari l y bul l -doggi ng, w i th h i s horse, Im

a Pasture A f

f ai r. Der ek a nd Coffee m et dur in g a ro deo event several y

ears prior t o t hi s confl

ict and becam

e fri ends. On March 30, 1999, at a roping ev ent in San Marcos, Coff

ee and D erek di scussed trading thei

r horses. Coff

ee approached Gass a

nd asked he rif she wo uld agree t o t he trade. Gass responded

that if i t was a l l ri ght wi th her son , i

t was a l l ri ght wi th her. Two days l

ater, Co ff ee cal le d Derek, and the two agreed to me et to exch ange h orses. Coffe e han

ded Derek some pa

pers, which Derek la ter discovered

were trans f er pap ers f

or Ima Pasture Affair. G ass w as no t pr ese nt dur ing t he exchan ge of the horses. Acco rd ingto Gass an

d Derek, later

that night, when Gass dis covered that Coffe e had giv en Der ek t ra nsfer p ape rs fo r I ma Pas t ur e Affair, Gas s at t empt ed t o c all Coffee t o c larify that t he
exc han ge was only t empo ra ry, bu t she w as u nable t o r eac h him. She d id no t leave a messag e and
ma de n o f ur th er atte m pts to co n tact Cof f ee . Al th oug h Dere k r an

i n to Coff ee a couple of we eks later at a ropi n g ev en t, he di d n ot at t emp t t o cla r ify t he na t ur e o f t he ex ch an ge wit h C o ffee no ras se r t his conti nue d own ersh

i p i n Duran go. Several weeks later, at a r op ing event on Ap ril 20, Gas s’s hu sband approached Coff ee and in form ed hi m that he d id n ot own

Du ra n go, su gg esti n g th at th e e x ch an ge of h ors es wa s n ot a per manent one. The Gasses then b rought Ima Pasture Af

fai r to the arena an

d tied the horse to Coffee’s trai l er. A f

ter Cof f ee i nf orme d an off i cer th at the horse did n

ot bel ong to hi m, the of fi cer3

in structed t he Ga sses t hat t hey had t o r emove t he hor se fro m the t ra iler. T hey co mplied and returned hom e wi th Im a Pasture A f

f ai r. Sh o r t ly aft er war ds, Gas s filed suit aga inst C offee and s ou ght a w r it of se que stra ti on to rec ove r Du ran go. C of f eean sw ere d a

nd f i l ed a c oun terc l ai m f ordam ages and fo r d ec lar at o ry r elief. T he ca se wa s s ub mit t ed t o a ju r y, who found that the parties had ent er ed int o a n agr eement for t he exch angeo f t he ho r se s, t ha t Co ffee ha d s ub st an t ially co mplied wit h t he agreem ent, and that Coff

ee was th e ow

n er of Du ra n go. The j ur

y also f oun d th at G as s h ad n ot breach ed the a gr eement and awarded n o da mag es to Cof f ee . Ba se d on

t hese findings, t he t rial co ur t re nder ed jud gment , o rd er ing Gass to deli

ver any papers nece ssary

to transfer ti

tle of Duran

go t o Coffee.
DISCUSSI ON By her f irst poin t o f error, Gass argues that the ev ide nce w as leg ally o rfac t ua lly insufficientt o s upp or t t he jury’s finding t hat she a nd Co ffee ent er ed int o a co nt ra ct for t he exch ange of t he t wo hor ses, Dur ango and Im a Pasture A f

f ai r. She f urther all eges that any

agreem ent between he r se lf and Cof fee v iolated the statute of f

rauds , see Te x. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 2.201 (a) (West 1994) , and the

Ag ri cul ture Code , see

Tex . Ag ri c. Code An n. § 1 46.001 (We st 1982 ), and i s the ref ore une nf orceab l e. To revi ew th e ev i den ce un der a le gal in suf fi ci ency or no-eviden

ce point, we consi

der all the evi de nc e in t he ligh t mo st fav o r ab le t o t he pr ev ailing pa r t y, in du lgin g e ve ry re as o na ble in feren ce i n that party ’sf

av or. Associated Indem. Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc. , 964 S.W.2d 276, 285-86 (Tex. 199 8)
. We will up h ol d th e f i n di n g if moreth an

a s ci n ti l l a of ev i den ce su pp ortsi t. Burroughs Welcome Co. v. Crye , 907 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex. 1995). T he ev ide nce sup porti ng a4

finding amo un t s t o mo r e t ha n a sc int illa if r ea so na ble m

i n dscou l d a rri v e a t th e f i n di n g g i v en th e f ac ts prove d i n the parti

cul ar ca se. Id. Wh en re viewing t he fact ual su ffi ciency o f the evi

dence, we m

ust conside

rand wei gh all t he ev ide nc e a nd sho uld se t as ide t he jud gme nt o nly if t he su pp o r t ing ev ide nc e is so weak o r so contrar y to the overwh el

m i ng weight of

the evi den ce a s to be c l earl

y wrong and un j ust. Cain v. Bain , 709 S.W.2d

175, 17 6 (Tex . 1986)
. We wi ll not substitute our judgme nt for that of the trier of f act
mer ely because we m igh t reach a dif

f eren t concl usi on. Westech Eng’g, Inc. v. Clearw ater Constructors

, Inc. , 835 S.W .2d 190 , 196 (Tex. A pp.—A usti n 19 92, n o wri t). A b in din g contract is for med whe n t he f oll owi ng e l em en ts are prese

nt: (1) an off er, (2) an ac ce pt an ce in st r ict co mplia nc e w it h t he t er ms of the offer, (3) a meeting of the mi nds, (4) each part y’s consent to t he terms , and (5) executi on and del iv ery of the contract with the i

ntent that it be mutual and bi ndi ng. Buxani v. Nussbaum , 940 S.W.2d 350, 352 (T ex. App. —S an Ant onio 199 7, no wri t). Her e, Gas s in esse nce c ont est s t he t hird e lement. When a mee t ing o f the mi nds i s t he o nly element in dis pute, t he ex

is tence of a contract i s a q

ues tion of f act. Id. T his el em

ent ma y b e i nf erred f rom the ci rcumstances surroun

di ng th e tran saction
. Id. It ca

n a ri se f rom the pa rti es ’ c ond

uc t f rom whi chon e party can

“reasonably

draw the in

feren ce of a promi

se.” Haw

s & Garrett Ge n . Contractors, Inc. v. Gorbett Bros. Welding Co. , 480 S.W.2d 607, 609-10 (Tex . 1972) (quotin g 1 S. Wi l l i ston, C ontracts

§ 22A (1957 )). The jury in this case answ er ed t he fo llowing q ues t ion in t he affirmat ive: “Do you find t hat SU SI E N ELM S G ASS and LUKE LEON COFFEE entered into a co nt ra ct for t he sa le of t he horse kno wn a s ‘Durango ’ i n e xc ha ng e f o rt he ho r se kn o wn as ‘I ma P as t ur e A ffa ir ’? ” T he ju r y,5

however, wa s n

ot asked to det ermi

ne wh ether a me eting of

the mi nds ex is ted between

the part ies. Omi tt ed elem en ts aredeem

ed found b

y the court in such a m ann er as t o su pp o r t t he jur y’s ve r dic t if
no obj ec ti on

to the om i ss i on is made a nd t he element s ar e su ppo rt ed by so me evidenc e. Te x. R . C iv. P. 279 ; Ramos v. Frito-Lay, Inc. , 784 S.W .2d 667 , 668 (Tex. 19 90).

Gass claims tha t beca use t he t er ms “buy” o r “se ll” were never use d whe n discu ssing t he exch ange of the

horses, there i s no evi

dence that the exc

han ge was i n ten de d to b e p er

man en t. Al though the terms “

buy ” or “sel l” were not used b y thepa rties , the j ur y wa s pre se

n ted wi th substantial

evi dence f rom whi ch i t could have concl

uded that t he pa rt ies’ ac t ions impli ed a per manent exch angeof horse s. F i rst, Cof f eetes ti f i ed tha t when he ap proa ch ed Ga ss wi th th e p ropos i ti on of
swa pping horses, she r esp ond ed, “Well, you ’re go ing t o ha ve to talk to Derek.” So , he approached Derek, i nq ui ri ng , “ W el l , De rek , i f youwa nt t o t r ad e I ’ll t r ad e yo u my horse—my

bulldogging h

orse for this horse . . . . Derek, do you want t o t rade?” to whi ch Derek respo nded, “Wel l, y eah.” Gass then re plied, “If it’s all right wit h Der ek, it’s all right wit h me.” No one sug ges t ed t hat t he trade was tem porary duri ng th i s con versati on. The follow ingThu rsd ay, D er ek a nd Co ffee met at t he civ ic cen ter and t raded hor ses. At that ti me, Cof f ee h anded D erek th

e pap ers f or Ima Pasture Affa ir, an d D er ek t o ld Co ffee t hat he
wo uld gather Durango’s papers an d del iv er them l ate r. C of f ee con str ue d th i s trade a s p er

man en t: “Th erewa s no o t he rr ea so n fo rme t o giv e h im t he pa pe r s t o t his hors e i f I was not tradi ng i t.” In add itio n, Coff

ee testif ie d that on at least one occasion a fter the horse trade, he encountered Gass at
a rodeo even

t, and she m

ad e no m ention of the trade bei

ng temporary , despite her awareness that1 Acco rd ing t o C offee ’s t est imony at t rial, “s eas oning a horse” means partici pating with the horse in seve ra l diff

er ent are nas s o tha t the hor se wi l l be com e a ccus tomed

to pa rti ci pa ti ng i n a va ri ety of venues. 2 “ Cog gi ns pa pe rs ” re f ers to ado cu ment re flect ing t he r es ult s o f a Coggins test. A Coggins test is a n off ic ia l test for equi

ne i nf ectious anem

ia . 4 Tex. Adm

in . Code § 49.1(a) ( 200 1)
. Co gg in s pap ers ma

y b e checked w

hen a horse crosses state li

nes or bef

ore a horse is al

lowed on rode o gro unds. 6 Co f fee had gi ven Derek the papers f

or Ima Pasture Af

fai r, indi catin g that t he ex

chan ge was perm anen t. Coffee’s brothe

r, Lawrence , testifi

ed that he too was presen

t when Derek

and Cof fee agreed to trade horses. Like

Cof f ee, h e h eard Gas s re spo nd t o C offee ’s r equ est t o t ra de ho rse s wit h, “If it ’s f ine w ith De

rek, it’s f in e wi th me.” He di

d not hear Gass or Coff

ee refe r to the trade as t emp o r ar y. Lawrence

was al so present when

Coff ee and Derek actuall

y e xch anged h orses. He testifi ed tha t he sa w C of f eeha nd the pa pe rs f orIm a P astur e A

f f ai r to Derek, and opin

ed that the tr ade di d not l ook li ke a tem porary one to hi m . A third wi tness, Al to n Sande

rs, was al so present durin g the conver sat ion b etween Derek and Cof f ee re gardi ng th e horse trade
. He t est ifi

ed t hat when C offee ask ed G ass a bou t t ra ding t he hor se s, s

he rep l i ed , “ W

ha tever [ De rek

] wa nts .” S an de rs di d n ot he ar a ny on e c h ar ac te rize t he trade as temporary. He later offered to purchase Durango f rom Coff ee. Gass pr ese nt ed c onflict ingevidenc e. She t est ifi ed t hat no o ne eve r c har act er ized t he t ra de a s a p er manent one . T o t he co nt ra ry, s he t est ifi ed t hat she only

in tended that Cof

f eebor row Dur ango t o se as o n him. 1 Wi th reg ard to Cof

f ee’ s de l i very of Im a Pasture A f

f ai r’spape rs, De re k testifi ed t hat he mistak enly tho ught t he papers were Co ggins papers, 2 not t ransf

er papers. And a

fter7

he and Gass di scovered thatthe papers were i ndeed transf

er papers, they tri ed to co ntact Coffee , but
we r e u na ble t o r ea ch him.

We ho ld t ha t t he ev ide nc e p r es en t ed amo un t s t o mo r e t ha n a sc int illa insupp ort of t he jury’s verdict. And al

though Gass presen

ted con f l i cti ng ev i de nc e, th e j ury wa s th e s ol e j udg e of

t he witnesses’ cr edibility and

was en titl ed to resol ve the c onf l i cts. McGalliard v. Kuhlmann , 722 S.W.2d 694, 69 7 ( T ex . 19 86 )
. T hu s, we ho ld t he evi den

ce wa s b oth legal

l y and f actual l y suf f i ci en t to support the j ury ’sverdi ct.

Gass a lso c omp lains tha

t i f an oral con tract ex i ste d, i t did n ot com pl y wi th s ec ti on 2.201(a) of t he Bu siness a nd Com merce Code. Tha

t secti on general

l y statesthat an

y contract for a
sa le of goods f or th e p ri ce

of $5 00 o rmo r e is no t en fo r ce ab le u nle ss in wr it ing
. T ex . Bu s. & C o m. Code An n. § 2.201. G ass , however, i gnore s the ex cepti on to thi s rul

e f ound i n s ubs ection (c), whi

ch stat es, “A con tr ac t wh ich do es no t sa t isfy t he r eq uir eme nt s o f Su bse ct io n ( a) bu t wh ich is va lid in ot her respects is

enf orceabl e . . . (3) with respect to goods for which pay me n t has be en made and accepted or which have been

recei ved an d accepted . . . . ” Id. § 2. 201 (c ). Thu s, in o rd er t o r emove t he agr eement f

rom the ope rati on of t he st at ut e o f fraud s, C offee must have e st ablished r ece ipt and
ac ceptance of the goods. Wilson v. Remmel Cattle Co. , 542 S.W .2d 938 , 941 (Tex. C iv
. Ap p. —A mar illo 1976, writ ref’ d n .r.e.) . The i ssue of rece i pt and acc eptan

ce i s a f act i ssue. Id. Here, the jury

found t ha

t Gass acc epted Im

a Pasture A f

f ai r, as re f l ected i n i ts respons e to ju

ry que sti on num ber twel ve . It is undi sputed that Gass als o received Ima Pas ture Aff ai r, sin ce she h ad pos se ss i on

o f t he ho r se un t il t he t ime o f t r ial. SeeTex. Bus. & Com. Co de Ann. § 2.103(a)( 3) (West Supp. 2001) (receipt

of goods is “

taking ph ys ic al possession of them

”). Coffe e therefore establ is hed his affirmative d efense , a nd the oralcontr act was not rendered unenforceable b y the statut e of frauds.8 Gass nex t contends tha

t se cti on 146.001 bars j udgme

nt for Coff

ee. Section 146.001 pr ov i de s i n perti n en t pa rt: (a) If a p er so n in t his s t at e s ells o rt r an sfe r s a ho r se , . . . t he ac t ua l de livery of t he ani ma l m ust b e ac com

pan i ed b y a wri tten tra nsf er t o t he pu rc hase r fro m the vendor . . . . (b) On th e tr i al of th e ri gh t of pr ope rty in a n a nima l s old or transferred un der Sub se cti on (a) of this

section, the possess ion of the ani ma l wi thout the written t r an sfe ris p r es ume d t o be illeg al.
Te x. Agric. Code Ann . § 146.001. The eff ect of this statut e i s to creat e a

pr es umpt io n o f ille ga lit y,
a presum pt i on th at may be reb utted. Fi rs t

Na t ’ l B a n k v
. B ro wn , 23 S.W. 862, 863 (Tex. 1892) (ho ldingthat under predecessor statut e, sa l e of ani ma l wi thout written transf

er is prim a fac ie il le gal butopen to explan

ation) (quoting Wells

v. Littlefield

, 59 Tex. 556 (1884 )); Sw

an v. Lark

in , 28 S .W. 217, 217 (Tex. Ci

v. App.—San

Ant o nio 18 94 , no wr it ) ( ho ldin g t ha t un de rpr ed ec es so rst at ut e, sa le of an i mal wi thout acc omp an

y i ng w ri tten b i l l of s ale cre ates re

buttab l e pres

um pti on of i l l egal i ty). Here, Cof

f ee pr es en ted ev i den ce succ es sf ul l y reb utti n g th e p re su m pti on of an i l l eg al ag re em en t. S pe cif ica lly, the j ury he ard ev i de nc e that C of

fee and Gass had entered i nto an agreem

ent to t rade horses, an

d b oth pa rties h ad com pl i ed wi th the agreement by ex

changi ng possession of the horses. The jury then conc l uded that a v al i d agre em en t existed b etween C off

ee a nd G ass . Gas s’s first po int of error is overruled.

By h er se con d p oi n t, Gas s co nt ends t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in re nder ingjudg ment in fav or o f Cof fee b ecause h e el ec t ed t he r eme dy o f br ea ch o f co nt r ac t da mag es , no t sp ec ific performa nce, and the j ury f

ai le d to fi nd a b reach o f contr act by Gass. We disagree with Gass’s9

i nte rpreta ti on of the court’ s j udgm

en t as a j udgm

en t for sp ec i f

i c p erf orm an ce . “ Th e p urp ose

of spe cific per for mance is t o c omp el a pa rt y who is violatin g a duty to perform unde

r a val id c ontract to co mply w it h his o blig at io ns .” Estate of Griff in v. Sumner , 6 04 S .W. 2d 2 21, 225 (T ex. Civ. App.—San

Anto nio 1 980 , w rit re f’d n. r. e. ). Her e, Co ffee so ught a judg ment d eclar ingt he o wn er ship ri gh ts in Durango. He did n

ot seek to co m pe l Ga ss to pe rf orm a d uty un de rt he co nt r ac t . T he ba sis f orhis de claratory

j udgm en t acti on wa s tha

t the duty had al ready be en perf orme d, i.e. , the parties ha

d al ready ex ch an ge d h o r se s. I nd ee d, t he o nly rea son Cof f eedi d n ot have p os sess ion o f Dur ango at t he t ime of the trial

was that Gass ha

d obtaine d a w rit of seques trat ion. Thus , the trial court ordered Gass to return

Duran go to Coff

ee, al ong wi

th the ne ces sary

owne rsh i p pap ersi n ord er to ef f ec tua te it s judgm ent decl arin

g Coff ee the owner

of Durango. Contrary to Gass’s ass ertions, the trial court
was n ot co m

pe l l i n g h er to perform a

n obl iga tion that she h

ad fai le d to perform un

der th e c on tra ct. The contract had

al ready be en perf orme d. W e ove

rrule Gas s’ s se cond

poi nt of error. By her thi rd point of error, Gass all

eges that t he t rial co ur t er re d in re nder ing judg ment in fav or o f Cof fee because t he jury’s

an swe rs to two of the

question s pre sen

ted i n the j ury ch arge a re in fatal confl ict. Question num

ber ei ght asks the j ury: “

Do yo ufind tha t SU SI E N ELM S G ASS and LUKE LEO N CO FFEE ent er ed int o a contract fo rt he sa le o f t he ho r se kn o wn as ‘D ur an go ’ in exch angefor t he hor se k now n as ‘I ma Pas t ur e Affair’?” Q ues t ion nine i nq ui red , “ Do y

ou f i nd f rom
a pre pon de ran ceof the ev i de nc e that SU SIE N

EL MS GA SS a

nd LE ON CO FF EE di d n

ot form an agr eement fo rpe r man en t ly swappi ng o r tra di

ng hor se s? ” Th

e j ury an sw ere d “

yes ” to q ue sti on num ber ei ght a nd “ no” to que sti on n

i ne .3 Gass f urther argues t hat when c ons ider ed in co njunct ion wit h t he jur y’s answ er s t o q ues t ions ten, f our tee n , f i f tee n , s i xtee n , s ev en tee n , a n d e i gh tee n , i ts an sw er to q

ue sti on nine ev ide nc es t ha t it f ound no agree men

t existed between the par ties. The aforementioned questions generall y ask whether a br ea ch o f t he ag r ee men t o cc ur r ed , wh et he rCo ffee ch an ge d h is p o sit io n t o his det riment in rel i an ceupon the agree men t, an d w he the r Cof f ee wa s dam ag ed by Ga ss ’s con duc t orbre ach. The jury answered n

o t o each of the questions. The j ury’ s ans wers, however, do n ot re f l ec t a f ai l ur e to find t hat an ag re ement exist ed. Rat her , it s answ er s ar e co nsist ent wit h t he judg ment decl arin g Coff ee t he r igh t ful o wn er o f Du r an go . T he jur y’s an sw er s r efle ct t ha t t he pa r t ies ha d fu lly performe d

t he agreem ent and that no breach

exi sted. 10 Jury an swe rs are i n f atal conf l i ct i f the a nswer gi ven to one

question would requ

i re judg ment for t he pl

ai n ti f f an d th e a n sw er gi v en to th e oth er wou l d r eq ui rej udgm en t f or th e def en da n t. Coastal Ch em . , I n c. v. B ro wn , 35 S.W .3d 90, 9 9 (Tex . App.—Houston [14th Di st.] 2000, pet. f

i l ed). T his Court m

ay not stri ke down j ury an swe rs on the ground of

conf l i ct i f there is a ny r ea so na ble ba sis upon whi ch they can be recon cil ed. Love v. Stat

e , 972 S.W.2d 114, 117 (Tex. App.—Austi n 1998, pet. den i ed). Here, the jury ’s answers do not fatall y c onfl ict. Question num

ber ei ght asks whether t he two par tiesentered in

to a contract t o exchan

ge thei r horses. The j ury f

ound that a contract had been f orm ed . Ques ti on

number nine inquire s whe t her t he pa rt ies failed t o a gr ee t o s wap hor ses. The j ury answ er ed

n o. Th e j ur y th uscon cl ud ed th at th er e w as n o f ai l ur e to agr ee be t wee n t he part ies. The jury ’s f

in din g that the pa rt ies contr act ed t o swa p hor ses is consistent w ith the jury’s re f us al to find that no agreemen

t wa s form

ed. There i s no f

atal conf li ct between the ans

wers to t hese two questions. Gas s’s thi

rd point of error is overrul ed. 311 CONCLU SION Ha v i n g ov er ru l ed al l of Ga ss ’s poi n ts o f er ror, we af f i rm th e tr i al cou rt’ s j udgm

en t.

Bea An n Sm ith, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, B. A . Smi

th and Pury

ear Af fi rmed File d: Septembe

r 13, 2001 Do No t Publis

h