Opinion ID: 1376524
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Other Claims/Affirmative Defenses

Text: The Lopezes also pleaded negligence, DTPA violations, and fraud. The Lopezes did not move for summary judgment on these claims but rather moved to sever them. The motion to sever was combined with their motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims. In response, MHR filed a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing that (1) the parties had reached an accord and satisfaction, (2) the Lopezes accepted the benefits of the settlement and were therefore estopped from contesting it, (3) the breach of fiduciary duty claim was barred by limitations, and (4) there was no breach of contract as a matter of law. The trial court denied the Lopezes' severance and summary judgment motions, and rendered summary judgment for MHR on all of the Lopezes' claims without specifying the grounds for its ruling. We have upheld the trial court's summary judgment in MHR's favor on the Lopezes' breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims. We must next decide whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment in MHR's favor on the Lopezes' remaining fraud, negligence, and DTPA claims. The affirmative defenses asserted by MHR that could arguably defeat the Lopezes' remaining claims are accord and satisfaction and acceptance of the benefits. MHR contends that the trial court properly granted summary judgment on these defenses, and therefore all of the Lopezes' remaining claims are barred. The Lopezes, on the other hand, contend that MHR was not entitled to summary judgment on these affirmative defenses. We agree with the Lopezes, and consequently remand their fraud, negligence, and DTPA claims to the trial court. [6] The accord and satisfaction defense rests upon a contract, express or implied, in which the parties agree to the discharge of an existing obligation by means of a lesser payment tendered and accepted. See Jenkins v. Henry C. Beck Co., 449 S.W.2d 454, 455 (Tex.1969). MHR claims that the Lopez family's agreement to accept the settlement after full disclosure of the forty-five percent additional fee constituted an accord, which was satisfied when the Lopezes accepted payment of their part of the settlement funds. However, for this defense to prevail, there must be a dispute and an unmistakable communication to the creditor that tender of the reduced sum is upon the condition that acceptance will satisfy the underlying obligation. See id. The parties must specifically and intentionally agree to the discharge of one of the parties' existing obligations. See Industrial Life Ins. Co. v. Finley, 382 S.W.2d 100, 104 (Tex.1964). In other words, to prevail on its defense, MHR was required to present summary judgment evidence that the Lopezes disputed the fee and specifically and intentionally agreed to relinquish any claims they might have had against MHR for its alleged overcharge. To knowingly relinquish claims arising out of MHR's alleged overcharge the Lopezes would have to know that an overcharge existed. There is no evidence in the record, however, that there was a fee dispute between the Lopezes and MHR when the Lopezes accepted the settlement. A valid accord and satisfaction requires that there initially be a legitimate dispute between the parties about what was expected. Bueckner v. Hamel, 886 S.W.2d 368, 372 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied). Accordingly, MHR was not entitled to summary judgment on its accord and satisfaction defense. MHR's remaining defense, acceptance of the benefits, is a species of quasi-estoppel. See Atkinson Gas Co. v. Albrecht, 878 S.W.2d 236, 240 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, writ denied). Quasi-estoppel precludes a party from asserting, to another's disadvantage, a right inconsistent with a position previously taken. See id. The doctrine applies when it would be unconscionable to allow a person to maintain a position inconsistent with one to which he acquiesced, or from which he accepted a benefit. See id; Vessels v. Anschutz Corp., 823 S.W.2d 762, 765-66 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1992, writ denied). For the reasons considered in connection with the accord and satisfaction defense, the Lopezes' initial acceptance of a lesser portion of the settlement is not inconsistent with their later assertion that they were entitled to more. Consequently, MHR was not entitled to summary judgment based upon its acceptance of the benefits defense.