Court Opinion

ID: 9748453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:02:11.515833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:35.428647
License: Public Domain

KAREN ANGELINI, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I believe the evidence is legally insufficient to show that the sellers failed to comply with the provisions of the contract in question, I respectfully dissent.
At issue is whether the survey the sellers supplied to Schaefer as required by the parties’ contract misrepresented the 100-year flood plain because it did not include Zone B. The critical language in dispute is FEMA’s definition of Zone B, which is as follows:
Zone B: Areas betweén limits of the 100-years flood and 500-years flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than one (1) foot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood.
The majority notes that the first two of the three Zone B area classifications are somewhat contradictory and at odds with each other. Further, the majority states that neither the first nor the third designations of Zone B would require the seller to designate the disputed property as part of the 100-year flood limits on the survey. While I agree with the majority in this regard, I reach a different conclusion. I conclude that the three FEMA classifications of Zone B are three separate and distinct classifications. And, because FEMA identified the area in dispute as Zone B property with no breakdown as to the three classifications, it is impossible to tell whether the property in dispute falls within the first, second or third classifications or some combination thereof. There is simply no evidence that any part of Zone B falls within the 100-year flood plain. It is just as likely that some part of Zone B falls within the 100-year flood plain as not. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex.1998) (if the evidence supports equally probable but opposite inferences, it is speculative and amounts to no evidence). Accordingly, Schaefer has failed to meet his burden of showing that any part of the property in dispute fell within the second Zone B designation and, therefore, he has presented no evidence that the sellers failed to comply with the contract requiring them to provide him with information regarding the 100-year flood plain on the property.
The majority considers Henry Jewett’s expert testimony as some evidence that the failure of the sellers to include Zone B in the survey amounted to a misrepresen*35tation. Jewett testified that if he were preparing the survey required by the contract, he would include Zone B “because that would meet the criteria of the contract” and “[b]ecause part of the definition of B Zone contains language for the 100-year flood plain”. However, the fact that Jewett would have included it does not render the survey supplied by the sellers to be inaccurate or to amount to a misrepresentation. And, as noted above, FEMA’s definition of Zone B does not indicate that the subject property is located within any particular one of the three designations.
Jewett further testified that his investigation included a visit to the property to observe a high water mark. He admitted, however, that he had not made a determination as to what areas of Zone B are subject to 100-year flooding. This testimony amounts to no evidence- that the sellers made a misrepresentation by excluding Zone B from the survey.
For the above-stated reasons, I would reverse and render judgment in favor of the sellers.