Opinion ID: 2383417
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the ogdens' dtpa claim

Text: Soon after Thayer abandoned construction of the house, the Bank met with the Ogdens and stated that it expected them to pay the full amount of the note, regardless of whether the house remained unfinished. The Bank now admits, however, that neither the note nor the contract requires payment of the full contract price or the full amount of the note until someone finishes the house. In addition, the jury in this case found that the Bank attempted to collect [the full amount] under the note and contract executed by the Ogdens ... at a time when it was not due. Section 17.46(b)(12) provides, in pertinent part, (b) The term `false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices' includes, but is not limited to, the following acts: ... (12) representing that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law; ... In Leal v. Furniture Barn, Inc., 571 S.W.2d 864 (Tex.1978), which the majority once again refuses to discuss, this court held that under § 17.46(b)(12), a party to a contract commits a deceptive act as a matter of law when he attempts to keep or to collect money from the other party to the contract by falsely stating that the contract gives him the right to that money. In that case we said that such false statements were of the type that the legislature intended to proscribe. Id. at 865. The reasoning and the holding in Leal also apply to this case. I do not believe we should set forth one rule of law for a furniture store, which was held liable in Leal, but apply a different law when a bank has committed the same wrongful act. I would therefore hold that the Bank committed a deceptive act as a matter of law when it attempted to collect on the note by falsely representing to the Ogdens in November 1978 that the note was due. Furthermore, the facts of Flenniken v. Longview Bank and Trust Co., 661 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.1983), a case the majority fails to mention, are virtually identical to this case. In Flenniken, as here, the homeowners chose a builder to construct a house for them, and gave him a mechanic's and materialman's lien contract and a mechanic's lien note. In Flenniken, as here, the builder assigned the lien contract and note to a bank as security for interim construction financing. The builder in Flenniken failed to finish the house, and the bank foreclosed on the buyer's property. In Flenniken, the jury found that the foreclosure was an unconscionable course of action. Hence, the Flennikens had a claim under § 17.50(a)(3) of the DTPA. In the instant case, the jury found that the Bank had attempted to collect the sum of $66,000 plus interest and attorney's fees when it had no right to do so. Those acts would be laundry list violations under § 17.46(b) of the Act, giving rise to a cause of action under § 17.50(a)(1). Because a violation of either provision gives rise to liability under the act, Flenniken and this case are indistinguishable. Yet the majority says that the Flennikens recover under the DTPA, but the Ogdens do not.