Source: http://causeofactionelements.blogspot.com/2011/
Timestamp: 2017-08-24 04:48:53
Document Index: 321567033

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 74', '§ 74', '§ 74', '§ 74', '§ 22', '§ 5', '§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 17', '§17', '§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 17']

COA.TX: 2011
HEALTHCARE LIABILITY CLAIMS: MED-MAL EXPERT REPORT REQUIREMENT
UNDER SECTION 74.351 OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE
When a plaintiff brings a healthcare liability claim, section 74.351 requires the plaintiff to serve each health care provider defendant with an expert report that “provides a fair summary of the expert’s opinions . . . regarding applicable standards of care, the manner in which the care rendered by the physician or health care provider failed to meet the standards, and the causal relations between that failure and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 74.351(a) and 74.351(r)(6).
If a plaintiff timely files an expert report, the defendant may move to challenge its sufficiency. Id. § 74.351(a); Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 877. The trial court must dismiss the case with prejudice if the court finds that the report does not represent a good-faith effort to comply with the statute. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(l); Palacios, 46 S.W.3d at 877 (discussing predecessor statute).
Section 74.351(c) permits a trial court to grant a medical malpractice plaintiff a thirty day extension if an expert report “has not been served within the period specified by Subsection (a) because elements of the report are found deficient.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 74.351(c). If the claimant receives notice of the court’s ruling after the initial 120-day deadline has passed, then the extension runs from the date the plaintiff first received notice. Id.
SOURCE: HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS - 01-11-00136-CV - 12/14/11
A bare assertion of causation does not meet the requirements of section 74.351(r)(6), because “[a]n expert report cannot simply opine that the breach caused the injury.” Jelinek, 328 S.W.3d at 539. No “magical words” such as “reasonable medical probability” demonstrate that the report complies with section 74.351(r)(6). See Bowie Mem’l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 53; Regent Care Ctr. of San Antonio II, Ltd. P’ship v. Hargrave, 300 S.W.3d 343, 347 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. denied) (finding single sentence addressing causation did not demonstrate good-faith effort to comply with Act). Rather, to satisfy the element of causation, an expert must explain the basis of her statements and link her conclusions to the facts of the case. Jelinek, 328 S.W.3d at 539; Bowie Mem’l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 52.
Posted by Wolfgang Demino at 1:13 PM
Labels: HCLC, Med-Mal-suit
The construction of a deed is ordinarily a question of law. See Terrill v. Tuckness, 985 S.W.2d 97, 101 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (noting that rules of contract construction ordinarily apply to construction of deeds). Our primary concern in construing a deed is to ascertain the parties’ true intent as expressed in the instrument. Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. 1991); CenterPoint Energy Houston Elec., L.L.P. v. Old TJC Co., 177 S.W.3d 425, 430 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). “Because ‘once a dispute arises over meaning, it can hardly be expected that the parties will agree on what meaning was intended,’ courts use canons of construction to help ascertain the parties’ intent.” French v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 896 S.W.2d 795, 797 (Tex. 1995) (quoting Southland Royalty Co. v. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 378 S.W.2d 50, 59 (Tex. 1964) (Calvert, C.J., concurring)). The “four corners” rule requires us to ascertain intent from the entire instrument. See French, 896 S.W.2d at 797. We must strive to harmonize all of the deed’s parts, construing the deed to give effect to all of its provisions. Luckel, 819 S.W.2d at 462; CenterPoint Energy, 177 S.W.3d at 430.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE GENERALLY APPLIES UNLESS THERE IS AMBIGUITY
Extrinsic evidence of intent is admissible only if the deed is ambiguous on its face. See Friendswood Dev. Co. v. McDade & Co., 926 S.W.2d 280, 283 (Tex. 1996); CenterPoint Energy, 177 S.W.3d at 431 (“A court may consider the parties’ interpretations of the contract through extrinsic or parol evidence only after a contract is first determined to be ambiguous.”).
The decision whether the deed is ambiguous is also a question of law. See J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 229 (Tex. 2003); see also CenterPoint Energy, 177 S.W.3d at 430. To make this determination, we look at the deed as a whole in light of the circumstances existing when the parties entered into their agreement. See CenterPoint Energy, 177 S.W.3d at 430. If the deed is worded in such a way that it can be given a definite or certain legal meaning, then it is not ambiguous and the court will be confined to the writing. See id. at 30-31. A mere disagreement about the proper interpretation of a deed, however, does not make the deed ambiguous; the instrument is ambiguous only if, after application of the rules of construction, the deed is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning. Brown v. Havard, 593 S.W.2d 939, 942 (Tex. 1980); Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp. v. Daniel, 243 S.W.2d 154, 157 (Tex. 1951).
SOURCE: HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS - 01-10-01002-CV - 12/15/11
Labels: construction-interpretation, deeds, extrinsic-evidence, parol-evidence-rule
Relator, Charles W. Bishop, II, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relator complains that respondent* has not ruled on his "Declaration for Entry of Default."
Mandamus relief is available only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. 2010); In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008) ("We grant the extraordinary relief of mandamus only when the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy."). We have previously stated, "A party seeking mandamus relief must show that (1) the trial court had a legal duty to act, (2) there was a demand for performance, and (3) there was a refusal to act." In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (citing Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979)).
When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling on that motion is a ministerial act, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. See Safety–Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding); see also Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992).
To establish that the trial court refused to rule on a pending motion, the relator must provide a record demonstrating that he asked the trial court for a ruling on his motion and that the trial court refused to rule. See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W. 2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); see also Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The trial court is not required to consider a motion unless it is called to its attention. Smith, 263 S.W.3d at 96. The mandamus record must show that the motion was presented to the trial court and that the trial court refused to rule on it. See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).
According to relator, he filed his "Declaration for Entry of Default" in the trial court on September 21, 2011. He contends that he sent a letter to the trial court on November 1, 2011 requesting that it rule on his Declaration for Entry of Default. Relator also asserts that on November 14, 2011 he filed his "Motion Objecting to the Court’s Refusal to Rule." Relator attaches copies of these documents to his mandamus petition but does not provide a file-stamped copy of these documents or any other documentation to show that his Declaration for Entry of Default, or the other documents appended to his mandamus petition, have been filed and are pending before the trial court.
Nor does the record show that the trial court has actually been made aware of the Declaration for Entry of Default or refused to rule on it, as relator claims. See In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding); see also Smith, 263 S.W.3d at 96; Barnes, 832 S.W. 2d at 426. Lastly, we note that relator’s Declaration for Entry of Default does not request the trial court to render a default judgment or to grant any other affirmative relief to relator; rather, it simply contains a statement or "declaration" by relator that the defendants in the trial court have failed to answer or defend against his suit.
All petitioners for writ of mandamus, including those acting pro se, must furnish a record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426; see also Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837. Here, relator has not provided us with a record showing that the trial court received a motion requesting relief, was made aware of it, was asked to rule on it, and refused to rule. See Davidson, 153 S.W.3d at 491; see also Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
SOURCE: HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS - FIRST DISTRICT -
01-11-01048-CV - 12/16/11
Posted by Wolfgang Demino at 8:30 PM
Labels: mandamus-denied, mandamus-petition, pro-se-appeals
Some of the new opinions contain points of law relevant to this blawg (e.g., governmental immunity & prospective injunctive relief exception, limitations tolling theories, availability of declaratory relief), but can't be digested on the run. In the meantime, here is a list with excerpts (mostly introductory paragraphs and conclusions) from the Court's opinions in the 11 cases:
TEX. SUP. CT. UPDATE: TABLE OF CASES DECIDED DECEMBER 16, 2011 (and one opinion on motion for rehearing)
[Case style with opinion snippets and procedural history, i.e. case in the court below]
[Photos added 12/20]
Seal of the City of Dallas in front of Cityhall
CITY OF DALLAS v. DAVID S. MARTIN AND GEORGE G. PARKER, ET AL.; from Rockwall County; 5th district (05-03-01310-CV, 214 SW3d 638, 12-21-06) 2 petitions
Justice Phil Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice David Medina, Justice Paul Green, Justice Eva Guzman, and Justice Lehrmann joined.
Justice Willett delivered a dissenting opinion
﻿﻿﻿﻿Lowell v. City of Baytown, TX, No. 07-1011 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011)(firefighter litigation, governmental entities, no immunity to claim prospective injunctive relief brought against government official in official capacity)
A Question of Identifying to Proper Target
﻿﻿In addition to remanding to permit the firefighters to replead in light of chapter 271, our remand will also permit the firefighters to replead in light of Heinrich and seek appropriate relief, if any, against the relevant city officials.
Accordingly, we grant the firefighters’ petition for review and, without hearing oral argument, reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1, 60.2(d).
KEITH LOWELL, ET AL. v. CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS; from Harris County; 1st district (01-04-00548-CV, 264 SW3d 31, 08-09-07)
Oh, the Quirks of Federalism
﻿ ﻿﻿﻿﻿Minton v. Gunn, No. 10-0141 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011)(patent litigation)
This case arises out of patent infringement litigation. We consider whether federal courts possess exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over state-based legal malpractice claims that require the application of federal patent law. The federal patent issue presented here is necessary, disputed, and substantial within the context of the overlying state legal malpractice lawsuit. Additionally, the patent issue may be determined without creating a jurisdictional imbalance between state and federal courts. We conclude that exclusive federal jurisdiction exists in this case. Accordingly, without reaching the merits of the legal malpractice claim, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and dismiss this case.
CONCLUSION: Because we determine that the application of the experimental use exception to the on-sale bar is a necessary, disputed, and substantial element of Minton’s state-based legal malpractice claim, and because the federal courts are capable of addressing this issue without disrupting the jurisdictional balance existing between state and federal courts, we hold that Minton’s claim has triggered exclusive federal patent jurisdiction. Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of Minton’s claims, and we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and dismiss the case.
VERNON F. MINTON v. JERRY W. GUNN, INDIVIDUALLY, WILLIAMS SQUIRE & WREN, L.L.P., JAMES E. WREN, INDIVIDUALLY, SLUSSER & FROST, L.L.P., WILLIAM C. SLUSSER, INDIVIDUALLY, SLUSSER WILSON & PARTRIDGE, L.L.P., AND MICHAEL E. WILSON, INDIVIDUALLY; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (02-06-00443-CV, 301 SW3d 702, 10-08-09)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and dismisses the case.
Justice Paul Green delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright, Justice Phil Johnson , and Justice Lehrmann joined.
Justice Eva Guzman delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice David Medina and Justice Willett joined.
In Re SCI, No. 10-0155 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011)(arbitration, procedure to select arbitrator)
Everything with dignity -
including selection of arbitrators
In re Service Corp. Inc., No. 10-0158 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011)(appointment of arbitrator based on agreement on method, rather than selection by the trial court judge) (mandamus granted)
IN RE SERVICE CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL AND SCI TEXAS FUNERAL SERVICES, INC., JOINTLY D/B/A MONT META MEMORIAL GARDENS; from Cameron County; 13th district (13-10-00026-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-23-10)
Grave Problems ....
SCI asserts that the trial court’s appointment of an arbitrator interfered with the contractual rights of the parties and was not authorized by the Federal Arbitration Act. Without reaching the parties’ arguments as to which party or parties have the burden of approaching the AAA to appoint an arbitrator, we agree with SCI that the trial court’s appointment was an abuse of discretion from which there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004). In a related case also decided today, In re Service Corp. International & SCI Tex. Funeral Services, Inc. d/b/a Magic Valley Memorial Gardens, we analyzed an identical arbitration provision. __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. 2011). Following the rationale in Magic Valley Memorial Gardens, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by appointing an arbitrator instead of following the agreed-upon method of selection outlined in the contract.
As a matter of law, the two month delay in the selection of an arbitrator in this case, by itself, does not establish a lapse or failure of the parties to avail themselves of the contractual selection method. See 9 U.S.C. § 5; Magic Valley Memorial Gardens, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. 2011). Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we conditionally grant SCI’s petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to vacate its prior order appointing David Calvillo as arbitrator. TEX. R.APP. P. 59.1, 52.8(c). We are confident the trial court will comply, and the writ will issue only if it fails to do so.
Etan Industries, Inc. v. Lehmann, No. 10-0318 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011)(limitations bar, propriety of declaratory relief, award of attorney's fees on declaratory judgment claim, mootness doctrine)
ETAN INDUSTRIES, INC. AND ETAN INDUSTRIES, INC., D/B/A CMA CABLEVISION AND/OR CMA COMMUNICATIONS v. RONALD LEHMANN AND DANA LEHMANN; from Lee County; 3rd district (03-07-00539-CV, 308 SW3d 489, 03-26-10)
Shell Oil Co. v. Ross, No. 10-0429 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011)(oil, gas and natural resources law, limitations and discovery rule, fraudulent concealment, accrual of cause of action, starting date for running of limitations)
The Courthouse clock had been ticking
SHELL OIL COMPANY; SWEPI LP D/B/A SHELL WESTERN E&P, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SHELL WESTERN E&P, INC. v. RALPH ROSS; from Harris County; 1st district (01-08-00713-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-25-10)
Americo Life, Inc. v. Myer, No. 10-0734 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011)(selection of arbitrators on panel, neutrality of chosen arbitrator)
In re Jeffrey Cook, No. 10-0855 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011)(reason for grant of new trial required, even if original judge replaced)(mandamus granted).
The relator asks us to decide whether a trial court abused its discretion when it issued an order granting a motion for new trial “based on all grounds in the motion.” While this case was pending, however, the judge who signed the order resigned, and we remanded the case pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b). The successor trial judge then entered an order stating only that his predecessor’s ruling “should remain unchanged.” We recently held that a successor trial court’s order reaffirming the original trial court’s grant of a motion for new trial was “effectively an order refusing to enter judgment on the jury verdict and affects the rights of the parties no less than did the orders of the original judge,” and we concluded that the relator in that case was “entitled to know those reasons just as much as it would be entitled to know the reasons for the orders entered by the former trial judge.” In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204, 214 (Tex. 2009). Accordingly, we conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the successor trial court to specify the reasons it refused to enter judgment on the jury verdict and ordered a new trial. Id. at 215. Because the successor trial court judge in this case did not state sufficient reasons for his ruling, contrary to our holding in In re Columbia, we conditionally grant relief.
IN RE JEFFREY COOK; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (02-10-00068-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-08-10)
Ryland Enterprise, Inc. v. Weatherspoon, No. 11-0189 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011)(appellate procedure, timeliness of appeal, extension of deadline to file notice of appeal)
In the Texas Supreme Court, it's usually the corporate
defendants that get a break
RYLAND ENTERPRISE, INC. v. VICKIE WEATHERSPOON; from Harris County; 1st district (01-10-00715-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 01-27-11)
MOTIONS FOR REHEARING DENIED -- WITH OPINION -- IN:
Marsh USA, Inc. v. Cook, No. 09-0558 (Tex. Dec. 16, 2011) (opinion on rehearing)(noncompetes, consideration, enforceability)
Go or No Go? - The signals from
MARSH USA INC. AND MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC. v. REX COOK; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-08-00685-CV, 287 SW3d 378, 05-26-09)
The Court's opinion of June 24, 2011 is withdrawn and the opinion of this date is substituted. The concurring opinion by Justice Willet, the dissenting opinion by Justice Paul Green, and the judgment issued June 24, 2011, remain in place.
Supreme Court of Texas - Tex (2011) Opinions released December 16, 2011 (link to court here)
Labels: Tex-Sup-Ct-precedents
PROVING LEGAL FEES and FEE SEGREGATION REQUIREMENT (per Dallas CoA)
As to attorney's fees, clear, direct, and uncontroverted evidence of attorney's fees is taken as true as a matter of law, especially when the opposing party has the means and opportunity to disprove the testimony. B&W Supply, Inc. v. Beckman, 305 S.W.3d 10, 20 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.); see Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, 801 S.W.2d 880, 882 (Tex. 1990).
If a claimant is entitled to recover attorney's fees for some but not all of his claims, he bears the burden of segregating his fees between claims for which they are recoverable and claims for which they are not. Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299, 311 (Tex. 2006); A&L Eng'g & Consulting, Inc. v. Shiloh Apollo Plaza, Inc., 315 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.).
But a party is not required to segregate attorney's fees if “discrete legal services advance both a recoverable and unrecoverable claim,” thus causing the fees to become “so intertwined that they need not be segregated.” Chapa, 212 S.W.3d at 313-14. If legal fees are incurred to prosecute a claim for which fees are recoverable, the resulting fees are recoverable even if the services also support claims for which fees are not recoverable. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d at 313.
SOURCE: DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS - 05-10-00173-CV - 12/15/11
Posted by Wolfgang Demino at 5:47 PM
Labels: attorneys-fees, segregation-of-fees
FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, FAILURE TO MAKE DISCLOSURE OF DEFECTS IN CONNECTION WITH
ELEMENTS OF FRAUD & FRAUDULENT NON-DISCLOSURE
The elements of a cause of action for fraud are: (1) that a material misrepresentation was made; (2) the representation was false; (3) when the representation was made, the speaker knew it was false or made it recklessly without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive assertion; (4) the speaker made the representation with the intent that the other party should act upon it; (5) the party acted in reliance on the representation; and (6) the party thereby suffered injury. In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, 758 (Tex. 2001). Fraud also occurs when a party fails to disclose a material fact within the knowledge of that party; the party knows that the other party is ignorant of the fact and does not have an equal opportunity to discover the truth; the party intends to induce the other party to take some action by failing to disclose the fact; and the other party suffers injury as a result of acting without knowledge of the undisclosed fact. New Process Steel Corp. v. Steel Corp. of Texas, 703 S.W.2d 209, 214 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). A seller is charged with disclosing such material facts as to put a buyer exercising reasonable diligence on notice of the condition of the house. Cole v. Johnson, 157 S.W.3d 856, 860-61 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).
Under certain circumstances, a buyer's independent inspection of the property may conclusively defeat two elements of a fraud claim: causation and reliance. A buyer's independent inspection precludes a showing of causation and reliance if it reveals to the buyer the same information that the seller allegedly failed to disclose. See Lesieur v. Fryar, 325 S.W.3d 242, 246-49 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2010, no pet.).
DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (Texas DTPA)
“The DTPA grants consumers a cause of action for false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices.”Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 649 (Tex.1996); see Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.50(a) (West Supp. 2010); see also id. §§ 17.45(5), 17.46(b). The trial court found the Home-Sellers knowingly engaged in a misleading, deceptive act that the Homebuyers relied on to their detriment and which was a producing cause of damages to the Homebuyers. The elements of a DTPA claim are: (1) the plaintiff was a consumer; (2) the defendant either engaged in false, misleading or deceptive acts (i.e., violated a specific laundry-list provision of the DTPA) or engaged in an unconscionable action or course of action; and (3) the DTPA laundry-list violation or unconscionable action was a producing cause of the plaintiff's injury. Amstadt, 919 S.W.2d at 649; see Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 478 (Tex.1995). In our review of a DTPA claim, we must liberally construe and apply the statute to promote the underlying goals of the statute, which include protecting consumers against false, misleading, and deceptive business practices and unconscionable actions. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.44(a) (West 2002); Latham v. Castillo, 972 S.W.2d 66, 68 (Tex.1998).
WHAT DAMAGES CAN BE RECOVERED UNDER THE DTPA?
A consumer who prevails on a claim under the DTPA may obtain the amount of economic damages found by the trier of fact. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.50(b)(1) (West Supp. 2010). If the trier of fact finds that the conduct of the defendant was committed knowingly, the consumer may also recover damages for any mental anguish found by the trier of fact. Id. A prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and any other relief which the court deems proper. Id. §§17.50(d); 17.50(b)(4).
An award of mental anguish damages will survive a legal sufficiency challenge when the plaintiffs have introduced direct evidence of the nature, duration, and severity of their mental anguish, thus establishing a substantial disruption in the plaintiffs' daily routine. Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434, 444 (Tex. 1995). Direct evidence of mental anguish may be in the form of the parties' own testimony, that of third parties, or experts. Id. There must also be some evidence to justify the amount awarded, and the amount awarded must be fair and reasonable. Saenz v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, 925 S.W.2d 607, 614 (Tex. 1996).
Direct evidence of mental anguish may be in the form of the parties' own testimony, that of third parties, or experts. Parkway, 901 S. W. 2d at 444.
of termite-infested home
NOTE: The court of appeals' opinion refers to the parties by their real names; they have here been replaced with functional labels
In the summer of 2006, the Homebuyers, interested in purchasing a property in Sherman, were driving through a residential neighborhood when they saw a for sale sign in front of the Home-Sellers' home. The Homebuyers stopped and got out to look at the house, and the Home-Sellers came out and offered to give them a tour of the house. During the tour, the Home-Sellers discussed the remodeling they had done to the house. The Homebuyers decided to buy the house and offered $125,000, which the Home-Sellers accepted. The Homebuyers hired James Langford to do a home and termite inspection before the closing. The Homebuyers and Home-Sellers were all present at the time of the inspection. In the seller's disclosure statement, the Homebuyers had seen the Seller's disclosure that the house had been “sprayed and treated in spring for termite[s]. Outside only.” The Home-Sellers had told the realtor that it was “for maintenance purposes only.” During the inspection, Langford asked where the termites were. Rick Seller did not respond to Langford's question, and Langford asked, “Where did you spray?” Rick Seller said “it was outside, out down around the old storage building.” Connie Home-Buyer “felt a concern” and asked Rick Seller if there were any termites or if there had ever been any termites. Rick Seller said no. The sale proceeded to closing.
The Homebuyers began moving into the house and found termites on September 1, 2006, nine days after closing. At that time, the interior of the home appeared freshly painted. Connie Home-Buyer set a box down and bumped into a picture and a dry erase board that the Home-Sellers had left in the kitchen. The dry erase board and picture fell down, revealing a hole in the wall behind each one. Connie Home-Buyer began removing the wallpaper in the kitchen because she knew she was “going to have to redo it” and “get that hole fixed in the kitchen.” When Connie Home-Buyer removed the “very first piece of wallpaper” she discovered what she recognized were termite holes.
The Homebuyers hired a licensed exterminator and termite inspector, Roy Reed, to perform an inspection on September 8, 2006. In the den ceiling, Reed immediately identified an area where the termites had already eaten the wood, and it was “not even wood anymore, [it was] caulk.” Reed pushed up with his thumb on the ceiling and “termites just showered down on him.” Reed told Connie Home-Buyer “what pictures to take as he was going through the inspection,” and the photos were admitted at trial. The inspection revealed termite infestation in the house, and the Homebuyers “never unpacked.” The Homebuyers got estimates on repairing the termite damage, but they could not afford to make the repairs, and they decided to move. The Homebuyers rented a place to live and sold the house approximately eight months later for $74,000, a thousand dollars less than they owed the bank. In July 2007, the Homebuyers sued the Home-Sellers and Langford. The Homebuyers settled their claims against Langford. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Homebuyers, and this appeal followed.
In their first issue, the Home-Sellers argue the trial court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Contrary to the Home-Sellers' assertion, the record contains the trial court's letter to the parties making findings that (1) the Home-Sellers engaged in a misleading, deceptive act that the Homebuyers relied on to their detriment and which was a producing cause of damages to the Homebuyers; (2) the Home-Sellers engaged in such conduct knowingly; and (3) the Home-Sellers committed fraud against the Homebuyers. The trial court went on to find the Homebuyers were entitled to benefit of the bargain damages, out of pocket expenses, mental anguish damages, “additional damages permitted by the DTPA,” and attorney's fees.
After the trial court files its original findings of fact and conclusions of law, any party may file a request for specified additional or amended findings or conclusions with the clerk of the court. Tex. R. Civ. P. 298;Gentry v. Squires Constr., Inc., 188 S.W.3d 396, 408 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.). The failure of a party to request additional or amended findings or conclusions waives the party's right to complain on appeal about the presumed finding. Gentry, 188 S.W.3d at 408. The Home-Sellers failed to request additional or amended findings and therefore have waived any complaint. We overrule the Home-Sellers' first issue.
In their second issue, the Home-Sellers argue the evidence is factually insufficient to support the trial court's judgment. The Home-Sellers argue the evidence is factually insufficient to show they made false material representations to the Homebuyers or their acts were a substantial factor in bringing about an injury to the Homebuyers.
[section on factual sufficiency challenge omitted]
The trial court found the Home-Sellers committed fraud against the Homebuyers. The elements of a cause of action for fraud are: (1) that a material misrepresentation was made; (2) the representation was false; (3) when the representation was made, the speaker knew it was false or made it recklessly without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive assertion; (4) the speaker made the representation with the intent that the other party should act upon it; (5) the party acted in reliance on the representation; and (6) the party thereby suffered injury. In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, 758 (Tex. 2001). Fraud also occurs when a party fails to disclose a material fact within the knowledge of that party; the party knows that the other party is ignorant of the fact and does not have an equal opportunity to discover the truth; the party intends to induce the other party to take some action by failing to disclose the fact; and the other party suffers injury as a result of acting without knowledge of the undisclosed fact. New Process Steel Corp. v. Steel Corp. of Texas, 703 S.W.2d 209, 214 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). A seller is charged with disclosing such material facts as to put a buyer exercising reasonable diligence on notice of the condition of the house. Cole v. Johnson, 157 S.W.3d 856, 860-61 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).
“The DTPA grants consumers a cause of action for false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices.”Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 649 (Tex.1996); see Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.50(a) (West Supp. 2010); see also id. §§ 17.45(5), 17.46(b). The trial court found the Home-Sellers knowingly engaged in a misleading, deceptive act that the Homebuyers relied on to their detriment and which was a producing cause of damages to the Homebuyers. The elements of a DTPA claim are: (1) the plaintiff was a consumer; (2) the defendant either engaged in false, misleading or deceptive acts (i.e., violated a specific laundry-list provision of the DTPA) or engaged in an unconscionable action or course of action; and (3) the DTPA laundry-list violation or unconscionable action was a producing cause of the plaintiff's injury. Amstadt, 919 S.W.2d at 649; see Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 478 (Tex.1995). In our review of a DTPA claim, we must liberally construe and apply the statute to promote the underlying goals of the statute, which include protecting consumers against false, misleading, and deceptive business practices and unconscionable actions.See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.44(a) (West 2002); Latham v. Castillo, 972 S.W.2d 66, 68 (Tex.1998).
In their third issue, the Home-Sellers argue the trial court erred in failing to grant their “motion for verdict as a matter of law” on the Homebuyers' fraud and DTPA claims. See Footnote . Specifically, they argue “the Homebuyers' reliance on their own professional inspection negates the element of reliance.”
Under certain circumstances, a buyer's independent inspection of the property may conclusively defeat two elements of a fraud claim: causation and reliance. A buyer's independent inspection precludes a showing of causation and reliance if it reveals to the buyer the same information that the seller allegedly failed to disclose. See Lesieur v. Fryar, 325 S.W.3d 242, 246-49 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2010, no pet.). Relying on Dubow v. Dragon, 746 S.W.2d 857 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1988, no writ), the Home-Sellers argue the Homebuyers' careful inspection of the property in this case negated the element of reliance. Based on the facts presented in Dubow, this Court concluded that “the [buyers'] 'careful' inspection of the house's condition constituted a new and independent basis for the purchase which intervened and superseded the [sellers'] alleged wrongful act.” Id. at 860. But the crucial fact in Dubow was not the buyers' procurement of an independent inspection; it was their express and exclusive reliance on the “professional opinions” they received to renegotiate the sales contract that resulted in the sale of the house. Id.; see Fernandez v. Schultz, 15 S.W.3d 648, 652 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2000, no pet.). In this case, there is no evidence that the Homebuyers relied solely on the opinion of their inspector in making their decision to purchase the house. See Fernandez, 15 S.W.3d at 652. Also, the contract here was never renegotiated in reliance on the inspection. See id. In fact, the testimony shows the Homebuyers' decision to buy the property would have been materially affected if the Home-Sellers had told them on the seller's disclosure form about the prior termites in the home. See id.
In their fourth issue, the Home-Sellers argue the trial court erred in awarding “out-of-pocket” expenses, loss of fair market value, mental anguish damages, and attorney's fees. Specifically, the Home-Sellers argue the Homebuyers failed to present competent evidence to support any damages. In reviewing a contention of no evidence to support a trial court's finding, we must consider only the evidence and inferences tending to support the finding and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Fernandez, 15 S.W.3d at 651. If there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the finding, it must be upheld. Id.
The Home-Sellers cite the standard that “the evidence must show a high degree of mental pain and distress that is more than worry, anxiety, vexation, embarrassment or worry,” citing Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo, Inc. v. Hamick, 125 S. W. 3d 555 (Tex. App.-Austin 2003, no pet.). They argue that the evidence from Connie Home-Buyer showed she experienced stress, lost a little weight, felt anxiety because of her husband's drinking, and refused to take any anti-anxiety medicine. The Home-Sellers also cite Jerry Home-Buyer's testimony that some of his wife's anxiety was directly related to his issues with alcohol.
Direct evidence of mental anguish may be in the form of the parties' own testimony, that of third parties, or experts. Parkway, 901 S. W. 2d at 444. Connie Home-Buyer testified she and her husband put their life savings into a home they could neither live in nor afford to repair. She testified that it destroyed them financially. Connie Home-Buyer related how her husband had maintained his sobriety for twelve years but began drinking again because of this stress. She convinced him to go to the doctor, who prescribed medication. Jerry Home-Buyer has continued to take prescription medication for the last two years. Connie Home-Buyer testified she was unable to eat for three months after this occurred, she threw up everything she ate, and she lost fifteen pounds. Under cross examination, she stated her husband's relapse was caused by the loss of the house, and she was under a lot of mental anguish and a lot of mental pain. Jerry Home-Buyer testified how very hard emotionally this had been and that this was his only relapse in his sobriety. Evidence that Jerry Home-Buyer maintained his sobriety for twelve years and then relapsed under the financial stress of losing his home and life savings, together with evidence Connie Home-Buyer shared in this loss and was unable to eat, is evidence of much more than mere worry, anxiety, vexation, embarrassment, or anger. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to establish the nature, duration, and severity of their mental anguish. See Parkway, 901 S. W. 2d at 444.
The Homebuyers' attorney stated his attorney's fees were $29,944.75, and he had deleted $5477.50 from his bills relating to the proceedings against Langford. The Homebuyers' attorney testified the remaining bills were for time spent on the Home-Sellers' case involving DTPA and fraud, and he was unable to separate those bills because they were so intertwined. The Homebuyers' attorney testified $24,467.25 would be a reasonable fee for the work he performed in this case. The Homebuyers' attorney was cross examined about both the time spent on the case and the segregation of fees. The Home-Sellers stipulated that the Homebuyers' attorney was qualified when he began his testimony regarding attorney's fees. The trial court heard all the evidence and awarded attorney's fees of $20,000. The record shows the attorney's fees associated with claims against Langford were segregated. Because the record shows the legal services advanced both the fraud and DTPA claims against the Home-Sellers, the fees were so intertwined that segregation was not necessary. See Chapa, 212 S.W.3d at 313.
This record shows the Homebuyers presented competent evidence of out-of-pocket expenses, loss of fair market value, mental anguish damages, and attorney's fees. We therefore uphold the trial court's finding on these damages. See Fernandez, 15 S.W.3d at 651. We overrule the Home-Sellers' fourth issue.
Footnote: Although the Home-Sellers also argue the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgment on the Homebuyers' negligent misrepresentation claims, the Homebuyers did not assert a claim for negligent misrepresentation, and the trial court's judgment did not award relief on a negligent misrepresentation claim. While the Homebuyers' original petition alleged certain negligence claims against Langford, all claims against Langford were dismissed prior to trial.
Labels: DTPA, fraudulent-non-disclosure, real-estate-litigation
Conveyance of land normally requires a proper written instrument (deed), but there are exceptions. Moreover, the statute of frauds is an affirmative defense subject to waiver.
TEXAS STATUTE OF FRAUDS AS TO REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS AND
EXCEPTIONS TO ITS STRICT APPLICATION
Under Texas law, oral contracts to convey land are not void, but unenforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought raises the statute of frauds as a defense. Joiner v. Elrod, 716 S.W.2d 606, 608-09 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1986, no writ).
To relieve a parol sale of land from the operation of the statute of frauds, three things are necessary: (1) payment of the consideration, whether it be in money or services; (2) possession by the vendee; and (3) the making by the vendee of valuable and permanent improvements upon the land with the consent of the vendor or, without such improvements, the presence of such facts as would make the transaction a fraud upon the purchaser if it were not enforced. Hooks v. Bridgewater, 111 Tex. 122, 126-27, 229 S.W.2d 1114, 1116-117 (1921).
This is also called the doctrine of partial performance. See Boyert v. Tauber, 834 S.W.2d 60, 63 (Tex. 1992) (“Under the doctrine of partial performance as applied to the statute of frauds, an oral contract for the purchase of real property is enforceable if the purchaser: (1) pays the consideration; (2) takes possession of the property; and (3) makes permanent and valuable improvements on the property with the consent of the seller, or, without such improvements, other facts are shown that would make the transaction a fraud on the purchaser if the oral contract was not enforced.”).
SOURCE: CORPUS CHRISTI COURT OF APPEALS - 13-10-00490-CV – 12/1/11
Posted by Wolfgang Demino at 3:57 PM
Labels: deeds, real-estate-litigation, real-estate-transactions, statute-of-frauds
SUIT FOR PARTITION OF LAND HAS SOME QUIRKS
Partition serves to divide property owned by co-tenants and concerns possession, not title. See Barham v. McGraw, 342 S.W.3d 716, 719 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, pet. filed); Dierschke v. Central Nat’l Branch of First Nat’l Bank of Lubbock, 876 S.W.2d 377, 380 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994, no writ) (stating that an owner of a non-possessory interest cannot compel partition). Thus, to prevail in a suit for partition, “a plaintiff need only establish that he owns an interest in the property and has a right to possession of a portion thereof.” Trevino v. Trevino, 64 S.W.3d 166, 171 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.). In order to have a partitionable, “possessory interest” in a given piece of property, one must have an equal “right to possession” with the other joint owners. Savell v. Savell, 837 S.W.2d 836, 838-40 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (must have right to present possessory interest); Brelsford v. Scheltz, 564 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Lichtenstein v. Lichtenstein Bldg. Corp., 442 S.W.2d 765, 767-68 (Tex. Civ. 5 App.—Corpus Christi 1969, no writ) (party seeking the partition must have an equal right to possession with the other joint owners). The trial court shall order partition if it “determines that the whole, or any part of such property is susceptible of partition.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 761.
TWO FINAL JUDGMENTS
A partition case, unlike other proceedings, has two final judgments, and the first one is appealable as a final judgment. Griffin v. Wolfe, 610 S.W.2d 466, 466 (Tex. 1980). The first decree determines the interest of each of the joint owners or claimants, all questions of law affecting the title, and appoints commissioners and gives them appropriate directions. Ellis v. First City Nat'l Bank, 864 S.W.2d 555, 557 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1993, writ denied); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 760, 761.
The second decree approves the report of the commissioners and sets aside to the parties their separate shares. Ellis, 864 S.W.2d at 557. In addition to determining the basic issues of partitionability in kind and the fractional interest of the parties, the trial court also has the power during the initial stage of the partition proceeding to adjust all equities between the parties. Yturria v. Kimbro, 921 S.W.2d 338, 342 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, no writ); see also Snow v. Donelson, 242 S.W.3d 570, 572 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.) (“The trial court applies the rules of equity in determining the broad question of how property is to be partitioned”).
Proof is made to the fact finder at trial of the existence and value of improvements to the property at the time of partition and of other equitable considerations that may warrant awarding a particular portion of the property to one of the parties. Price v. Price, 394 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1965, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The general rule is that where improvements have been made upon the property sought to be partitioned, the improved portion will be allotted to the part owner who has made the improvements if this can be done without prejudice to the other owners. Id.
RELATED POSTS: Two-step in partition suit explained | suit for division of jointly-held real property real estate | Example of partition suit (appellate opinion) from Houston |