### NUM BER 13-06- 490- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
GEOR GE T . M OEN CH , A pp ellan t,
v . DEN NIS A ND PA

TT I N OTZ ON, A pp e llees.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rta t L aw N o . 1 of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

# MEMORAND UM OPI NI ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s The tw o happi estday s in a boat ow ner ’s li fe are the day he buy s the boat and t he day he s ell s t he boa t, o r so the s ay ing g oes. I n thi s c ase, both day s a re i nv olv ed, a nd neith er the b uyer nor the seller is happ y . Appe llees, Den nis and Patti Notzon, bro ught suit against ap pellan t Geo rg e Moen ch for his failure to retu rn a “depo sit” they paid in the cou rse of attempti ng to purchas e M oench ’s boat

. After a j ur y tr ial , t he tria l co urt rendered2

jud g ment aw ardin g ac tual damag es, mental angui sh damag es, ex emplar y damag es, and attor ney ’s fees app arentl y under the Tex as Dec epti v e Tra de Pract ic es Act( “D TPA”)

. See T EX . B US
. & C O MM . C OD E A NN . § 1 7

. 5 0 ( V e r n o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 )

. M o e n c h a rg u e s t h a t t he
ev ide nce is l eg all y

and factual ly

insuffici ent to suppor

t the jur y ’s f ind ing s and tha t t he tr ial
cour t s houl d hav e g ra nted a mi str ial

. For the re asons thatfoll ow , w e aff ir m. I. B A CKGRO UND Den nis N otz on i s a n Ar iz ona resi dent. H e i s mar ri ed to Pat ti Not z on. Den nis w as employ ed as a tr uck

dri v er and a heav y

m achi ne operat or

for some ti me, but he w as forced t o re t ir e wh e n h e in ju re d h is b a c k

. T h e No t zo n s t h e n su rvi ve d o n De n n is ’s d is a b il it y p a y, Patt i’ s d is abi li ty

pay , and so ci al sec ur ity inc ome the Not z ons re cei v ed for th eir min or ch il d. This apparentl y

w as not e noug h to sus tai n the ir famil y , as the Not z ons file d for a nd final iz ed th eir

bank ru ptc y

i n 2002. No t wan ti n g to “ju stsitaro u n d ,” De n n is b e g a n exp lo rin g a ca re e r in scu b a -d ivin g. Den nis beg an l ooki ng for a boatto purchas e i n the hope of la ter findi ng under w ater employ ment. H e l ocat ed a li sti ng o n the i nter net for a 58 foot s ail boat cal led the “F at Duc k.” D enni s w as int erest ed i n the boatbec ause it had a flat de ck thatw as sui tabl e for div ing

. The li sti ng referenc ed Mar k S tuar t as the boat’ s c ontac t person. D enni s c ontac ted Stu art on m ultiple o ccasion s ov er the co urse of a few mo nth s to discuss th e bo at. Stu art
re present ed th at he w as the boat’ s sal esman, but Georg e Mo ench act ual ly ow ned the b oat. Before Denn is trav eled to T exas to v iew the boa t, Stu art represe nte d tha t the boa t w as “a g ood boa t.” St uar

t t old D enni s t hat t he Fat Duck “ w as re all y

di rty and needed cl eani ng from one end t o the othe r” and needed fresh pai nt; other w is e, i t w as ov erall so und.3

In N ov ember

2003, the Not z ons trav ele d to Por t Isa bel , Tex as, to loo k a t t he boat

. Theymet w it h St uar

t at Anch or Ma ri na w here the boat w as dock ed. After v iew ing the boat, the N otz ons and St uar

t drov e the boatout to sea for 15 to 20 minut es. The N otz ons then
me t w ith Stu art and Moe nch on Novembe r 14 , 200 3, to negotiat e the Notz ons’ pu rchase
o f t h e b o a t

. Al s o p re s e n twa s B il l C o le m a n , t h e b o a t ’s “b ro k e r, ” a n d S t u a rt ’s se c re t a ry. The par ti es’ neg oti ati ons cul minat ed in a “ta lk ing paper” set ti ng out the t er ms t he par ti es neg oti ated. D enni s t est ified thathe req uest ed the sale be conti ng ent on a sur v ey of the boat ’s st ru ctu ra l co n d it io n . H e recal led tel li ng M oench and Stuar t t hat h e di d not
w ant t o buy

a bo at t hat re qui re d m u ch wor k. Anythi ng more tha n a l ittl e s andi ng and pai nti ng w oul d be too muc h for Den nis , g iv en hi s d is abi li ty

. Mo ench init ial ly refused to
ma ke the sale cont ingent on a favorable surv ey, but ultim ate ly , Stua rt convinced Moen ch tha t mo st boa t sales i nclud e such provi sions. Acco rdingly , the cond ition w as includ ed in the t alk ing paper . The No tz ons present ed M oench w it h a fin anci al sta tement that show ed th at t hey had some equity

in their hom e an d tha t the y had previ ously filed for ban kruptcy. M oen ch tes ti fied th at he rev iew ed the Notz ons’ f ina nci al st atement and w as aw are of thei r financi al condi ti on. The No tz ons needed ow ner financ in g bec ause they co uld not g et a loa n w it h thei r credi t his tor

y . They pla nned to sel l thei r home to pay for the b oat. Stu art represent ed to t he N otz ons th a t th e boat’s pr ic e w as $115,00 0, w hic h i ncl uded a $15,000 depos itor down paymen t, an d Moen ch agreed to f inan ce the sale for the Not z ons. Den nis pai d the $15, 000 dep osi t t hat d ay . He tes ti fied th at he bel iev ed th at t he $15,0 0 0 wa s p aid to “h old the boat unti l the t ime [he] came d ow n to g et t he s ur v ey to est abl is h the [boa t’ s] condi ti on.” D enni s t est ified thathe a sk ed w hat M oench w oul d do w it h4

the $ 15,000: Q. Oka y . W hat w as tol d to y ou w hen y ou pai d the 15,0 00? W hat w as tol d to y ou abou t i t? A. I as ked if thatw as g oin g i nto a n e sc row ac count , l ik e w it h a h ouse, and I w as tol d tha t I cou ld wa itunti l Mo nday and w e c oul d do an esc ro w ac count , or

thati t w oul d j ustg o i nto t he s afe unti l the t ime the sal e w as compl eted. Q

. O k a y. A. And I co uld n’tst ay unti l Mo nday , w hic h the y kn ew . . . .

. . . Q. Oka y . W hat d id Mr . C ole man tel l y ou? A. About? Q

. A b o u tt h e m o n e y. A. That i t w oul d g o i n the sa fe unti l the s ale w as final iz ed.

. . . Q

. O k a y. An d t h e n wh a td id [ S t u a rt ] t e ll yo u a b o u tt h e m o n e y? A. Jus t t hat i t w oul d be in the s afe unti l the s ale w as final iz ed. The tal ki ng paper

w as v er y sh ort and did noti ncl ude a lotof detai l. R eg ardin g the
sur v ey and ini ti al pay ments, i t s tated : Sal es Pr ic e $115k Ow ner f inan ced sa le Sal e c onti ng ent o n s ur

v ey of str uct ural int eg ri ty

and haul -o ut Both par ti es ag re e to sur

v ey or Boat must be i nsured by buy er pr ior to haul -o ut Buyer assum es respo nsibility of v essel upon accep tan ce of t h is ag re ement Dow n Pay ment 15k Buy er ca n oc cupy

and improv e boat5 Boa t cann ot lea v e do ck until the f irst balloon is paid Buy er as sumes sl ip re nt ( $250 un ti l occ upi ed) Fi rs t Ba loo n [s ic ] $20 k Du e o n sa le o f

b u ye r’ s re s id e n c e — NL T 1 2 0 d a ys Boat must be i nsured Boat can onl y

sa il i n U S Gu lf C oast al re g ion After the p arti es si g ned t he ta lk ing paper and the N otz ons pai d the depos it , t he Not z ons re tur ned home to Ari z ona. Denni s beg an s earchi ng for a su rv ey or to condu ct the
sur v ey of the b oat. Stu art recommended Ma nni ng D ier lam as the sur v ey or . Den nis hi re d Di er lam in Febr uar

y 2004 and pai d hi m $350 t o c onduc t t he s ur v ey . Di er lam tol d D enni s i t w oul d take three to f iv e day s to produc e a w ri tten re por t after he c onduc ted t he s ur

v ey . Den nis di d nothear from D ier lam for 10 to 12 day s a fter h ir ing him, so D enni s c all ed. Ove r th e p h o n e , D ier lam re por ted t hat h e had not b een g iv en acc ess to the b oat. D ier lam als o stated thatbefore he w oul d be g iv en acces s to th e boat , the b oat o w ner

req uired that Di er lam send him any su rv ey repor ts firs t before s endi ng the
re por t t o D enni s. D enni s t houg ht t his w as odd bec ause he w as pay ing for t he s ur v ey , not Mo ench. I t app eared to D enni s that Di er lam w as tak ing orders from M oench , St uar t, and Col eman. Den nis testi fied that Di er lam finall y obtained acces s to the boat on M ar ch 18- 20, 2004. Den nis ’s co nv ersat ion s w it h D ier lam, a lo n g w it h oth er factors, caus ed hi m to q uest ion the str uct ural int eg ri ty of t he boat. Dur ing Di er lam’ s sur v ey , he dr il led hol es in and
around th e h a tc h w ay

and bel ow

the hatc hw ay

on t he i nsi de of the boat. Thes e hol es ind ic ated that the w ood w as sat urated w it h w ater

. Spec ific all y , D ier lam re por ted t hat o ut of ten ho les drilled, six

to eight rev eale d w et w ood one -half inch to on e inch de ep. Dennis t e s t if ie d t h a tt h e re wa s a n a ir co n d it io n e r u n ito n t h e t o p o f t h e d e c kt h a twa s le a k in g d o wn6

int o the boat , c ausi ng w ater damag e. Addi ti onal ly , t he rail ing on t he frontpar t of the boat was b e n d in g. Fur ther , i n J anuar

y , Stuar t repor ted to Denni s that a hatch had blow n of f the t op of the b oat w hil e i t w as si tti ng i n the dock

. Den nis tes ti fied th at t he hat ches on t he to p of the boat hav e steel hing es w it h screw s spac ed an inc h apar t. D enni s s tated thathatc hes do notu sually blow of

f while th e boa t is d ocked —he too k t his as an indicatio n tha t the boa t’s str uct ure w as damag ed. Addi ti onally, a s a telli te di sh on th e frontpar t of the boat had blo w n off w hil e the boatw as dock ed. Den nis w as conc er ned that the w hol e l eft si de of the boat w as damag ed. Denn is spoke wi th Di e rla m on the ph one on m ultiple o ccasion s but ha d troub le g etti ng D ier lam to s ubmita repor t i n w ri ti ng . After Den nis final ly recei v ed D ier lam’ s w ri tten repo rts, Dennis no ticed th at the rep orts min imized t he d am age tha t Dierlam ha d previously
re por ted o v er the phone. The first re por

t w as dated Ma rc h 29, 2004. I t notes that “[ t]he entr y hatc h i nto t he por t ama (o r outr ig g er

hul l) has been w etted ov er an e xtended per iod of

time al low ing w ood
ro t to occ ur int o the area bel ow the hatc h and w il l re q uire s ome repai r to retur n the v ess el to proper

co ndi ti on.” D ier lam est imat ed th at repai rs for t his damag e w o u ld c ost$750, alt houg h he esti mated the to tal repai rs needed to the b oat t o be $16,850

. In c ontrast , at the bo tt o m of the repor t, Di er lam sta tes “ [t] here i s n o apparent s tr uct ural damag e to the
v essel as see n af loat. ” On April 8 , 200 4, Dierlam drafted a se cond rep ort. T his repo rt sta ted t hat“[a] sma ll
w ood box

approx imat ely

2' below the hatc hw ay

w as obser

v ed to be d ry

but sl ig htl y

rotten f rom a ppa rent f reshwater wetted o v er a t ime p eriod drippin g do w n.” It conclud ed, howev er,O n M a y 1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , D i e rla m i s s u e d a fo u rth re p o rt th a t i s e s s e n ti a l l y i d e n ti c a l to th e s e c o n d re p o rt. 1 7 tha t the boa t w as structu rally soun d. Curiously, the last sent ence of the rep ort read s, “Th is
surv ey is subm itted w ithou t prejud ice as to a n y party.” On April 8, 200 4, Dierlam also is sued a thi rd repor

t. T his repor

t w as ess enti all y

identi cal to the first re por t, ex ceptthatthe est imat ed c ostof total repai rs w as re duced to $8,600. 1 After final ly

recei v ing D ier lam’s re por ts and St uar

t’ s repor t t hat p arts of the boat
w ere bl ow ing off

w hil e i t w as dock ed, D enni s req uest ed th at M oenc h r e tu rn h is $15, 000 payme nt. Denn is initially spoke to Stuart about getting his mo ney back. Stua rt told Denn is that he w oul d pass alon g the in formati on to M oench

. After Den nis recei v ed no re spons e, he beg an w ri ti ng l etters t o M oench

. I n a le t t e r d a t e d A p ri l 5 , 2 0 0 4 , De n n is re qu e s t e d t h a tMo e n c h re t u rn h is m o n e y. Den nis referenc ed hi s c oncer ns about the boat’ s w et w ood and D ier lam’ s repor t. H e w ro te: W e final ly hav e w ord on the sur v ey w e req uest ed ( w hic h the ow ner st il l has not approv ed) and it re v eal s ‘w et w ood’ more tha n one hal f the thi ck ness of the wood, with water ru nnin g ou t of t he bulkh ead b elow the h atch o n the port ama . M a n nin g repor

ts that out o f ten hol es dr il led , s ix to eig ht rev eal ‘ w et w ood’ one hal f inc h to one inc h deep. Thi s i s c onsi dered s tr uct ural damag e, and rele a se s u s from our ag re ement t o purchas e F at D uck on o ur tal ki ng pap er. Denn is receiv ed n o respo nse to this letter. Den nis w ro te ag ain on A pr il 11, 2004. H e attac hed a por ti on of D ier lam’ s sur

v ey to the lette r. He again referred to the w et w ood Dierlam discov ered

. He a s k e d fo r a f u ll
re fund of his $15,000 pay ment. D enni s n oted that thi s w as his se cond w ri tten re q uestfor
a refund and furt her

w ro te, “W e w oul d l ik e to keep thi s amic abl e.” Ag ain , Moenc h did not
re s p o n d o r r e t u rn t h e No t zo n ’s m o n e y. Den nis w ro te hi s t hird letter on Apr il 15, 2004. In thi s letter , he ag ain note d tha t he8

had req uest ed a re fund sev eral ti mes w it hout any respon se. H e threatened l eg al act ion but s tated thathe w oul d l ik e to av oid l it ig ati on i f possi ble

. Moen ch f inally respo nde d w ith a lette r asserting that t h e No tzons w ere in de fault
u n d e r t h e co n t ra c ta n d t h a t o wn e rs h ip o f t h e b o a t h a d re ve rt e d b a c kt o h im

. Sp e c if ic a ll y, Moen ch asse rted that the Notzons had failed to pay the balloo n pa y me nt of $20 ,00 0, w hich he as ser ted w as due on M ar ch 14, 2004, and thereafter fail ed to m ake the first of the 96 monthl y pay ments under

the ag re ement. M oench cl aimed that there w as no ev ide nce of any st ru ctu ra l damag e. He noted thathe had notrecei v ed th e ent ire s ur v ey co nduct ed by Di e rl a m . Mo e n c h a s s e rt e d t h a tt h e we two o d d is c o ve re d b yt h e s u rve y wa s m e re ly a
cos meti c fla w

and not a st ru ctu ra l int eg ri ty probl em. On J une 1, 2004, M oench se nt an e- mail to Den nis

. It sta ted: To s t a rtw i t h y o u a r e i n c o r re c ti n y o u r a s s u mp t i o n t h a ts t r u c tur al d a m a ge wa s fo u n d

— y o u h a ve n e ve r f u rn is h e d t h e f u ll su rve y a n d h a ve promoted o ne fabri cat ion after anot her and the t ru th of the matte r is y ou have pastdea dline a f

ter dea dline w ith the o nly thing t o sup port your case is half truths an d disto rtions. For once in y our l ife be a ma n an d quit telling half tr uths —w hen y ou l et us se e all of the s ur v ey and hav e i t c onfir med by the surv eyor and the state me nt no structu ral dam age is prese nt is not th ere I w ill be more c onv inc ed y ou are hones t. The No tz ons filed su itag ain st Mo ench, Stu art, and C ole man se eki ng a retur n of thei r $15,000 pay ment, all eg ing neg li g ence, breach of contract , c onv ersi on, m oney had and recei v ed, u nju st enr ic hment, fraud, neg li g ent misrepresent ati on, and v iol ati ons of the DTPA. M oench ans w ered and count er cl aimed for breach of contract

. The cas e w as tr ied to a jur y , w hic h found that Mo ench breache d hi s c ontractw it h the N otz ons and t hat t he N otz ons had notbreache d the cont ra ct. The jur y als o found for the N otz ons and agai nstM oench on t hei r cl aims for u nju st enr ic hment, money had andT EX
. B US
. & C O MM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 7.46 (Ve rno n S up p. 20 07 ). 2 M ent al ang ui sh an d exe m pl ar y dam ages ar e no t av ai l abl e f or unj ust enr i chm ent , m oney had and 3 re c e i v e d , o r b re a c h o f c o n tra c t c l a i m s . See Main Place Cust om H om es, I nc. v. H onaker , 192 S. W

. 3d 6 04, 6 1 3 (T e x . A p p .– F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 6 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (n o m e n ta l a n g u i s h d a m a g e s fo r b re a c h o f c o n tra c t)

. A d d i ti o n a l l y , a tto rn e y ’ s fe e s a re n o t a v a i l a b l e fo r a c o m m o n -la w fra u d c l a i m . I d. a t 6 1 3

. 9 re cei v ed, fraud, neg li g ent mi srepresent ati on, D TPA “ lau ndr y l is t” vio lat ion s, and 2
uncon sc ion abl e c onduc t. It found that Mo ench’ s c onduc t w as know ing and int enti onal

. It
aw arded $18,0 0 0 f or

“ los t moni es; ” $2,500 in inc ide ntal damag es; $20, 000 for mental ang uis h; attor ney ’s fees of $1 6,242. 50 for tr ial of t he cas e and an addi ti onal $10, 000 for
a s ucc ess ful appea l; and $5,000 in ex emplar y damag es. The j ur

y d id n o t f ind Stua rtor Col eman l iab le on any

ques ti on submitted. T he tri al cour t rendered judg ment aw ardin g the Not z ons all the damag es found by the jur y plus pre-

jud g ment i nterestand post -j udg ment int erest

. II. U N C ON SCI ON A B LE C OUR SE OF ACT I ON In hi s first is sue, M oench as ser ts g enerall y

that t h e e vidence i s i nsuffici ent t o suppo rtthe jur

y ’s v erdict. H e att ack s e v er y theo ry of re cov er

y found bythe jur

y . W hen a plaint if f r e c e ive s f avorable f indings on two or more the ories of recovery , the plaintif

f is enti tl ed to j udg ment on the theor y w hic h affords the g re ates t re cov er y . Boyce Ironworks, In c. v. S.W. Tel. C o. , 74 7 S. W .2 d 78 5, 78 7 ( Tex

. 19 88 )

. In th i s c as e, th e tr ial court awarded actu al dam ages, me nta l a nguish dam ages, exemp lary dam ages, an d att orne y ’s fe e s , t h u s in d ic a t in g t h a tt h e N o t zo n s ’ re c o ve ry wa s fo r D T P Avio la t io n s . Ac c o rd in gl y, we 3
w il l firs t addres s Moen ch’ s is sues ch all eng ing the Not z ons’ recov er y under the DTPA. T EX . B US
. & C O MM . C OD E A NN . §§ 17.41- .63 (V er non 2002 & Sup p. 20 07) ; Ma in Pl ace Cus tom Hom es, Inc

. v. Hon aker , 192 S.W .3d 604, 613 (Tex . App.–F ort W orth 2006, pe t. deni ed) (r e vie win g D T P Af in d in gs f ir s tb e c a u s e t h e y a f fo rd e d gre a t e s tre c o ve ry)

.W e no t e t hat t hi s i s t he onl y c a s e c ite d b y M o e n c h a s a ju s tif i c a tio n f o r h is a c tio n s . W h ile it is 4 te m p ti n g to d i s m i s s M o e n c h ’ s i s s u e a s i n a d e q u a te l y b rie fe d , T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1( h) , w e pr ef er t o ad dr ess t he m er i t s. 10 Mo ench ass erts that the e v ide nce is l eg all y and f a ct u a lly insuffici ent t o s uppor t a findi ng thathe e ng ag ed i n unconsc ion abl e c onduc t. See T EX . B US
. & C O MM . C OD E A NN . § 17.50( a) (3 ) (“ A cons umer maymai ntai n an act ion w here any of the fol low ing co nst it ute a produci ng ca use of economi c d amag e s o r damag es for menta l ang uis h: .

. . any uncon sc ion abl e ac ti on or co urse of act ion by

any person . . . .” ). M oench ’s so le arg ument is thatbecause he w as enti tl ed to keep the $15,000 “depos it ” pursuantto the t er ms of the cont ract, the ev iden ce conclu siv ely esta blishes that he did no t engage in unco nscion able condu ct. H e arg ues that the Not z ons w ere req uired to hav e a s ur v ey co nduct ed w it hin 120 day s a fter t he ta lk ing paper w as si g ned, or

M arch 14, 2 004. Bec ause the Not z ons did not compl y w it h thi s c ondi ti on and di d notmake further pay ments under

the tal ki ng paper , he claims he w as en titled to keep the $1 5,0 00. He ci tes Tex as Beef & Cattle C o. v

. G re en for the p ro p osi ti on th at “ [w]hate v er a man has a l eg al ri g ht t o do, he may do w it h imp unity . . . .” 92 1 S.W .2d 2 03, 2 11 (Te x . 199 6). M oen ch’s argume nt m isses the mark. 4 The l an g ua g e quote d ab ov e from Tex as Beef & C attle C o. w as cont ain ed i n the
cour t’ s d is cus si on of a leg al ju sti ficat ion defense to a clai m for tort iou s i nter ferenc e w it h a cont ra ct. Tex. Bee f & Ca ttle C o. , 921 S.W .2d a t 211

. In t hat c ase, the pla int iff sued for int er ferenc e w it h a cont ra ct, and the jur y found that the defendant w as leg all y j ust ified to int er fere w it h the contractbecause the defendant w as act ing w it hin hi s l eg al ri g hts

. Id. at 210. H ow ev er , th e t ri al cour t di sreg arded t he j ur

y ’s j ust ific ati on findi ng bec ause itfound that the d efendant ac ted w it h i ll w il l, sp it e, an d ac tual mal ic e. Id. Th e Tex as S up rem e C ou rt rej ec te d th i s for mu l at i on o f t he j us ti fi c at i on d efe ns e to a t or ti ou s i nt er

feren c e c l ai m:11

As w e not ed i n Sako witz , Inc. v. Steck, the jus ti ficat ion defense is based on eit her the ex er ci se of (1) one' s o w n l eg al r ig hts or (2) a g ood- faith cl aim to a col orabl e leg al r ig ht, ev en thoug h that clai m ult imat ely prov es to be mis tak en. Sako witz , Inc. v. Ste ck, 669 S.W .2d 105, 107 ( Tex .1984) , over ruled on o ther gr ounds by Sterner

v. Mar athon Oi l Co. , 767 S.W .2d 686 , 690 (Tex.198 9). Thus, if the tr ial co urt finds as a mat ter of law that the defendant had a leg al rig ht to interfere w ith a con tract, th en th e de fend anthas con clusiv ely est abl is hed t he j ust ific ati on defense, and the motiv ati on behind ass erti on of that r ig ht is irrele v ant. Improper m oti v es cannottrans form l awful ac ti ons int o act ion abl e tor

ts. “ ‘W hatev er

a man has a lega l rightto do, h e may do w it h impuni ty , reg ardle ss of moti v e, an d i f in ex er ci si ng hi s l eg a l righ t in a l eg al w ay dam age results to an oth er, no ca use o f action arises against him beca use o f

a bad m otive in ex ercising the rig ht.’” Mo ntgom er y v . Ph il li ps Petr ole umC o., 49 S. W .2d 967 , 972 (Tex. Civ . App .-Am arillo 1932 , w rit ref ’d). Tex. Be ef &C attle C o. , 921 S.W .2d a t 211

. In c ontrast , w it h re spec t to a DTPA cl aim based on u ncons ci onabl e c onduc t, Tex as cour ts hav e c onsi ste ntl y

hel d tha t t he transact io n a t iss ue mus t be v iew ed as a w hol e. Chasta in v. Koo nce , 700 S.W .2d 5 79, 5 83 ( Tex . 198 5) ; Coop er v. Lyon Fin. Servs., In c. , 65 S. W .3d 1 97, 2 07 ( Tex . App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2001, no p et.)

. As a g eneral proposi ti on, Tex as cour ts hav e notadopt ed a “l eg al jus ti ficat ion ” defense t o a D TPA ac ti on based on u ncons ci onabl e c onduc t, as has been do ne w it h a t orti ous int er f e re nce w it h a cont ract claim. It ma y be that in som e cases, a def end ant ’s cond uct i s not un conscio nab le
w here the evidence shows tha t the d efend antm erely acte d pu rsuan t to its rig hts un der a cont ra ct w it h the pl ain ti ff and nothi ng more. See, e.g. , Sciter n v . Bi rd song Cor

p. , N o. 11
- 99- 0 2 3 6 -CV , 2 0 0 0 W L 34 2 3 5 1 7 7 , a t * 4 (T e x. Ap p .– Ea st la n d 20 0 0 , n o pe t. ) (n o t d e sign ated for pub lication ) (f in d ing no evi den ce tha t def end antacted unco nscion ably w here only
e v i d e n c e d e mo n s t ra t e d t h a td e fe n d a n to ffs e tp l a i n t i ff’ s d e b tpurs u a n tt o t e r ms o f a prom issory

note ). Add itiona lly , evidence of unco nscion able cond uct must amou nt to more than a “ mere breach of contract ” to s uppor t D TPA l iab il ity . May

s v . Pi erce , 2 0 3 S.W .3d 564, 572 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 2006, pet. deni ed)

. How ev er , i t i s a ls o tr ue th at12

acts m ay be u ncon sc io n a ble even tho ugh performe d pu rsuan t to a con tract, pa rticularly
w hen the reco rd conta ins add itiona l evidence of represe nta tions reg arding the contract ’s int er pretati on or

othe r act s t hat s uppor t t he findi ng of uncon sc ion abi li ty

. See W eiler v. United Sav. Ass ’

n of Tex., FSB , 887 S .W .2d 1 55, 1 59-6 0 (Te x . App .–T exarkana 19 94, w rit deni ed)

. For ex ample, i n W

e ile r, the plaintif

fs alleged tha t the defend antban k engaged in
uncon sc ion abl e c onduc t by forec los ing on t hei r home after i mprop er ly

deducti ng amounts from an e sc ro w acc ount int ended to pay tax es on th e home. Id. at 157. Spec ific all y , t he plaint if fs a rg ued t hatt he ban k withdrew mo ney from the escro w accou nt to pay the ban k’s attor ney ’s fees after

a ba nkr uptc y

co urt alt e re d t he pay ments due by the pla int iffs to t he bank on th eir

mor tg ag e. Id. Then, due to the def ic ien cy in the escrow

ac countca used by the improp er w ithdra w al, the ban k sent con f licting dem and s for add itiona l amo unt s it believed w ere du e un der the note a n d u n d e r the ba nk’s const ruction of the ba nkrup tcy
cour t’ s o rd er . Id. The tr ial co urt g ra nted summar y j udg ment t o the bank

on t he D TPA cl aim, but the c our

t of appeal s rev ersed. Id. The cour t of appeal s h eld thatal thoug h a p ro per forecl osure in compli ance w it h the law w il l n o t supporta D TPA ca use of acti on, t he pl ain ti ff ’s ev ide nce that the b ank improper ly

w it hdrew

money from t h e e scro w

ac countto pay

i ts attor ney ’s fees and then sentco nflicti ng demands for p ay ments cons ti tuted so me ev ide nce that the bank “t ri ed to take advanta ge of

t he W ielers' la ck o f

kn owl edge, a bility , and ex perien ce to a grossly unfair degree. ” Id. at 160 . Th is holding cam e in the face o f the ba nk’s argume nts th a ttheir condu ct w as jus ti fied by the pla int iff’s mort g ag e and by the bankr uptcy

co urt’ s o rd er . Id. Thus, ev en th oug h a par ty bel iev es that iti s a cti ng pursuantto a c ontract , i ts condu ct may13

sti ll co nst it ute a n unc onsc ion abl e course of act ion

. See i d. ; see als o C om m er

ci al Escro w Co. v. Rockpo rt Rebel, In c. , 778 S.W .2d 532 , 538 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 198 9, w rit deni ed ) ( ho l di ng e s c row c om pa ny

e ng ag ed i n un c on s c i on ab l e c on du c t by i nc or rec tly ide nti fyi n g par

ty enti tl ed to es crow

funds i n i ts document ati on, e rroneous ly rele asi ng esc ro w funds t o unaut hor iz ed par ty, and lat er

represent ing thati t s ti ll retai ned t he funds pursuantto esc ro w

ag re ement) ; S u n Po we r, In c . v. A da ms , 7 5 1 S

. W

. 2 d 6 8 9 , 6 9 5 (T e x. App.–F ort W orth 19 88, n o w ri t) (h old ing thatow ner of off ic e mach ine s c ompany eng ag ed in uncon sc ion abl e c ourse of conduc t by refusing to re f u n d c u st o m er ’s money or ac cept return o f broken cash register). W e be liev e tha t, vi e win g t h e transa ction a s a w hole , the ev iden ce in this case supp orts a f inding of

unco nscion able cond uct, d espite Moench ’s claim t hath e w as me rely act ing pursuantto the tal ki ng paper. T he ev ide nce demonst ra tes thatD enni s p aid $15, 000 to hold the boat unti l the sal e w as compl eted and that the ent ire s ale w as condi ti oned on a survey thatdem onst rated the bo at w as structu rally soun d. Moen ch, throu gh h is agents,
re present ed th a t th e $ 1 5 ,000 w oul d be kepti n a s afe and retur ned i f the s ale w as not
com plete d. Denn is also testif ied th at he told Moen ch, Stu art, and Colem an that, due to his dis abi li ty , he coul d not per form str uct ural re pai rs on t he boatbey ond s impl e s andi ng and pain ting. Despite ha v ing this info rmat ion, Moe nch claim ed th at wa t er dam age, w hich
w oul d req uire s ubst anti al w or k to remedy , di d notco nst it ute a su ff ic ien t reason to w it hdraw from purchas ing the boat. Al thoug h M oench co ntends thatD enni s o nly had 120 day s t o have the su rv ey per formed, th e t a lking paper does not impos e any

su ch condi ti on. Rat her , t he 120 day li mita ti on appe ars t o appl y onl y to the N otz ons’ first pay ment, w hic h w as to be made after14

the N otz ons’ home w as sol d. Nev erthel ess , ev en as sumi ng thatthe 120 day deadl ine appl ied to obtai nin g a s ur v ey , D enni s t est ified thatthe sur v ey or thatStu art recommended, Di er lam, w as bei ng i nfluenc ed by M oench

. Den nis tes ti fied th at he hi re d D ierla m i n Febr uar y and that Di er lam promis ed a
re por t w it hin a s hor

t t ime after g ain ing acces s t o the boat

. But Di er lam w as not g iv en acc ess to the b oat i nit ial ly and w as made to promis e tha t any su rv ey w oul d be g iv en to Mo ench before b ein g present ed to the Not z ons. Acc ordin g to the repo rt s, Di er lam did not condu ct his surv ey

until after

M ar ch 14, 2 004, w hic h M oench co ntends w as the d eadl ine to c omplet e the sur

v ey . Fur ther more, Den nis tes ti fied that he recei v ed c onfli cti ng repor ts from D ie rl am. D ier lam re por ted s tr uct ural probl ems w it h the boatto Den nis ov er the pho ne, but his w ritten rep orts w ere significa ntly ton ed d own. From this evidence, the jury coul d hav e re asona bly bel iev ed that Mo ench int er fered w it h the sur

v ey so thatthe Not z ons coul d notrecov er

thei r $15,000 depos it

. Onc e D enni s b eg an req uest ing hi s money back , he ini ti all y re cei v ed no respon se. Onc e a respon se w as re cei v ed, i t w as host il e and demeani ng . Mo ench w as aw are of the Not z ons’ financ ial pos it ion and thei r need for the depos it

. Mo ench w as als o aw are tha t t he Notzons liv e in Ariz ona a nd w ould b e required to travel to resolve th e dispu te. Unde r these ci rc umstan ces , w e beli ev e the evi dence w as leg all y and factual ly

su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he ju ry ’s fin ding thatMoench took ad v ant age of the Notzons’ lack of

knowl edge, a b il it y, ex per ien ce, or

ca paci ty to a g ro ss ly

unfair deg re e. See Weiler

, 8 8 7 S

. W

. 2d at159- 60; Gr if fith v . Po rter , 817 S.W .2d 1 31, 1 36 ( Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 1 9 9 1 , n o w ri t) ( findi ng uncon sc ion abi li ty

w here defendant re tai ned ov er pay ment for m onths des pit e repeated
re q uest s for

refund). Ac cordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Mo ench’ s first is sue.15 III . M IS T R IAL By h is s e co n d iss u e , Mo e n ch a rgu e s t h a t t h e tri a l co u rterr e d by no t gra n ti n g a mis tr ial

. At o ne poi nt du ri ng Stu art’ s t est imony , St uar t eng ag ed i n a l eng thy st atement about the b o a t’s s eaw orthi ness . The No tz ons’ att or ney s t hen as ked if Stu art w as under the inf luen ce of

drugs and com me nte d tha t Stua rt’s speech w a s s lurred. Moen ch’s attor ney di d noti mmediat ely

obj ect

. Afte r th e N otz ons’ att or ney fini shed q uest ion ing Stuar t, Mo ench’ s a ttor ney

as ked for a mis tr ial outs ide the jur y ’s presenc e. He arg ued t hat Stuar t’ s a ppearance w as ir re g ula r and w oul d c ause har m to M oen ch and Col eman. Mo ench’ s a ttor ney

su g g est ed that Stuar

t w as int ox ic ated. The t ri al cour t den ied the moti on for mi str ial

. Thereafter , M oench ’s att or ney as ked th a t th e record reflectthatStu art had to be “rev iv ed from a st ate o f uncons ci ousne ss w hil e s itti ng at the tabl e w it h defense[ .] He w as eit her as leep o r u n d e r the i nfluenc e of dr ug s a nd unc onsc iou s.” The t ri al jud g e s tated , “W ell , I w il l ag re e tha t he w as asl eep and he had to be w oken up. I don ’tkn ow thati t w as to th e de gree o f

unco nsciou sness. ” T he trial cou rt then reiterate d th a tthe ba iliff w oke Stuar t up in front of the jur

y . Mo ench’ s a ttor ney

al so ask ed th at t he record reflectthatthe defendants w ere al l seat ed att h e s ame tabl e i n frontof the j ur y . The tr ial co urt not ed, h o we ve r, t h a tS t u a rth a d h is o wn a t t o rn e y. Mo ench arg ues that Stuar t’ s c onnec ti on to the cas e w as as Mo ench’ s a g ent, and beca use St ua rt w as sea ted at the same table w ith Moen ch at trial, Stu art’s cond uct
re fl e c t e d o n M o e n c h

. Th u s , h e a rg u e s , S t u a rt ’ s t r i a l d e me a n o r w a s “ o u t ra g e o u s a nd preju dic ial ” to M oench and “i nfluenc ed th e j ur y v erdict” i n thi s c ase.16

The record demons trates thatw hen t he N otz ons’ co unsel as ked St u art i f he w as in t o xic a t e d , Mo e n c h ’s co u n s e l d id n o tim m e d ia t e ly o bje c t , re qu e s t a n in s t ru c t io n , o r m o ve for a mis tr ial

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1( a) ( re q uir ing a tim ely compl ain t)

. Rat her , he w ait ed unti l a break in the ev ide nce to ra is e the is sue for the firs t ti me. Mo ench ’s c o u n se l then ask ed th e tr ial co urt t o ac know led g e on the re cord that at some poi nt ear li er in the tr ial , t he
c ou rt’ s b ai l i ff w as req ui r ed t o w ak e St ua rt up . Mo en c h’ s co un s el di d no t ob j ec t att ha t ti me eit her , butrather , he w ait ed unt il l ater i n the tr ial to ra is e the i ss u e. Mo ench has not
ex pla ine d i n hi s b ri ef w hy he c oul d not hav e ti mely ra is ed the is sue in the t ri al cour t or w hy an inst ruction regarding Stu art’s cond uct cou ld nothave cured an y p rejudice Moench per cei v ed by

bei ng se ated w it h St uar t at couns el’ s tabl e. See Dow Che m . Co. v. Francis , 46 S. W .3d 2 37, 2 41 ( Tex . 200 1) ( rejecti ng appel lan t’ s a rg ument reg ardin g i mprop er com me nts by tri al court be cause a ppe llant failed to explain how com me nts w ere incura ble or excuse his fa il u re to prese rv e error). Accordingly , w e ho ld tha t Moench w aived his
sec ond i ss ue. IV. C ONCL US I ON Beca use w e find that the e v ide nce w as leg all y and factual ly suffici ent t o s uppor t t he jur y ’s findi ng of uncon sc iona b le condu ct and t hat M oench w aiv ed any er ro r re lat ed to Stuar t’ s c onduc t attr ial , w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

_________

_________

_________

__ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 13t h day

of Ma rc h, 20 08.