Opinion ID: 2459188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: liability of pippen

Text: Pippen argues first that there is no evidence that he had any information or any reason to think that money was being embezzled by Hall from the City of Fort Worth. An examination of a few of these transactions will demonstrate why the jury found otherwise. On November 3, 1959, the City wrote to Rattikin a letter in this customary form: This is an application for a title policy on Lots 16 and Lot 17, Block 147, Clark's Addition, which the City has agreed to purchase from Mrs. Ora Bell Brooks for a cash consideration of $2,500.00. The City's check to Rattikin for $2,500 is dated November 4, 1959, and carries the notation: Purchase of Lots 16 & 17, Block 147, Clark's Addition from Ora Bell Brooks. A purchaser's statement dated November 9 was prepared by Pippen to report the details of closing to the City. It shows the purchase price as $2,500. The title policy, prepared on Pippen's instructions, was for the same amount of $2,500. But the seller's statement, which is signed by Mrs. Brooks, shows her amount due as $2,100. The $400 difference, disbursed by Rattikin's check to J. Hall Construction Company for construction work, is not shown on either statement. In the case of J. H. Bailey, the City explained that its check for $862.40 was to pay $191.00 for land; $671.40 for relocation of fences, loss of trees and damages to the remainder. The City's statement shows these figures, but the seller's statement shows only $259 for damages etc. together with the $191 for land. Bailey testified at the trial that his agreement was for payment of the total $450, as his statement reflected. The difference, $412.40, was paid by Rattikin's check to T. & H. Construction Co. on April 12 for construction. Bailey said that he knew nothing of T. & H. Construction Co., that no construction was done, and that he had a fence but moved it himself. C. B. Holden received $300 for damages, but the City paid Rattikin $400 for this purpose. The two statements show those respective amounts, and the $100 left in Rattikin's hands was paid by it to J. & H. Construction Co. Mrs. Holden testified that there was no construction and no word about J. & H. Construction Co. She also told in these words of an incident at the closing in Pippen's office: Mr. Holden raised up the first two sheets of paper and was reading at the bottom of the third sheet, when Mr. Pippen reached over and snatched the paper from his hands and told him he wasn't supposed to read it, it was all legal. The City sent a check for $62,340 to Rattikin for the A. Hall trade with this explanation: Payment for land is $48,000.00, $8,000.00 for improvements and $6,340.00 for estimated gravel and cancellation of lease agreement with truck farmer. The trade was closed by Pippen on March 21, 1962. He made a closing statement for the City showing the payment of $48,000 plus $14,340 for improvements and gravel. He issued the City a title policy for the $48,000. However, the seller's statement shows payment of only $55,000, as follows: Land $42,000; Improvements $8,000; Gravel $5,000. A. Hall was paid in full on this lesser basis. This left $7,340 in Rattikin's account, which was paid within a month by four checks as follows: $1,000 to M. & H. Construction Company for moving barn, $3,000 to M. & H. Construction Co. for construction, $2,000 to A. Hall for proceeds of sale, and $1,340 to A. Hall for bal. proceeds of sale. The seller, August Hall, was not related to Herman Hall. A. Hall testified that he sold his land and improvements for $55,000, that he knew nothing of M. & H. Construction Co., and that the two checks to A. Hall dated after the closing were never seen by him. These transactions were all closed by Pippen; and the checks were drawn, the title policies issued, and the papers prepared according to his direction. The City proved that the checks disbursed in the transactions described above, and all of those checks for which it seeks judgment, went into personal bank accounts of Herman Hall. Even if Hall's deception might explain the discrepancy in one or two transactions, it is inconceivable that Pippen could have been unaware of the irregularities in so many cases over the period of five years without alerting either a seller or the City. He did not contribute one word of warning or assistance to the City, and even testified at the trial that he then retained the greatest confidence in Hall. Pippen was a licensed attorney, 61 years old, and had fourteen years experience with Rattikin. The record supports the findings of the jury that Pippen knew that Hall was converting this money to Hall's own use. Pippen next argues that the City had parted with title to the money when it was sent to Rattikin and is therefore not entitled to complain about its misdirection. The contention is that the checks to Hall's companies transmitted money which belonged to the sellers of the land, and only the sellers could then sue for its conversion. Rattikin makes a similar argument, and apparently the trial court accepted it. The landowners have made no claim to these funds, nor could they. Their agreement to sell was at the lesser price, and this they received. They executed the necessary instruments and received the agreed consideration. A disclosure that the City intended to pay them a larger sum would not support a legal claim to the amount which they had left on the table. It should be noted that Rattikin did not receive or hold these funds as a true escrow, although that term has been used by the parties. There was no escrow agreement, and Rattikin owed no obligation to the seller with respect to funds which were held by Rattikin while consummation of the settlement and conveyance was being awaited. The City simply sent its funds to Rattikin to be used to acquire the land and to settle the claim of the selling landowners. If these funds were misapplied, it was the City and not the seller who was entitled to sue.