Court Opinion

ID: 9776694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:42:23.928912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:17.877491
License: Public Domain

TIJERINA, Justice,
dissenting.
We respectfully dissent. This Court is confronted with the substantial question of whether appellee Rubelle Hackworth, deceased, as a depositor of a checking account with appellant bank was a “consumer” under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the DTPA-Consumer Protection Act). In Riverside National Bank v. Lewis, 603 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.1980), a divided Supreme Court held that a loan applicant was not seeking to acquire “goods or services” and therefore was not a “consumer,” that money could not be classified as a tangible chattel or “goods,” *225and the court also rejected the position that an extension of credit qualified as a “service.” Plaintiffs argued that in the course of extending credit, the bank necessarily provided other services such as assistance in filling out the loan application, financial counseling and loan processing. The court noted that there was no evidence or pleadings on these collateral activities. Judicial interpretation of collateral services by banks to depositors of checking accounts, to determine their status as consumers, requires a liberal construction of the DTPA and a strict interpretation of the Riverside case. See Patton, Case Law Under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, 33 BAYLOR L.REV. 533, 552 (1981).
In the instant case, the nature and extent of banking services which warrant subjecting appellants to the provisions of the DTPA-Consumer Protection Act are reflected by the record. Joe C. Mosty, the bank Vice-President, identified Exhibit No. 5, which was the signature card of Rubelle Hackworth for a personal checking account and admitted into evidence without objection. It was well within the trial court’s prerogative to infer from the pleadings, evidence and findings by the jury that ap-pellee acquired banking services for her benefit constituting: (1) the safekeeping of her money; (2) maintaining a record of her checking account; (3) a monthly balance statement; and (4) that her checking account would be serviced in accordance with the good faith and ordinary care provisions of the Texas Uniform Commercial Code (signature card). Here we distinguish Thompson v. First Austin Co., 572 S.W.2d 80, 81-82 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.) where the court held against plaintiff, because the claimed services were for the benefit of the lender and not the borrower. The testimony of Gladys Rogers, supervisor of bookkeeping and data processing is material to this issue.
Q: With regard to the checking account services in the First National Bank, do you recall having seen a brochure that says, “First National’s full range of financial services can work full time serving as your personal bookkeeper, and remember we are always working for you first to give you your money’s worth”
A: Yes sir.
Q: And is that the position that First National Bank takes with regard to each and everyone of their depositors'1.
A: Yes sir.
[Emphasis added.]
We now confront the “consideration” aspect of the banking services. The court in Fortner v. Fannin Bank in Windom, 634 S.W.2d 74, 75, 76 (Tex.App.—Austin 1982, no writ) held that, “... a service performed gratuitously is not a ‘purchased’ service within the meaning of the Act.” In the case at bar, the consideration for banking services, was established by the testimony of Joe C. Mosty, relating, that the bank: (1) was allowed to use the money in appellee’s checking account; (2) appellee was required to maintain a minimum balance; (3) limit the number of checks; (4) an activity charge was assessed for failure to maintain a minimum balance or write an excessive number of checks; (5) a service charge for overdrafts; and (6) a possible fee for personalized checks — Mr. Mosty did not remember whether appellee was so charged.
More recently, First National Bank of Mercedes, Texas v. La Sara Grain Co., 646 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1982, writ granted) held that, “Processing of checks by a bank is within the definition of ‘services’ under the TEX.BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.41 et seq.”, citing Farmers & Merchants State Bank of Krum v. Ferguson, 617 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.1981).
Section 17.45(4) of the DTPA-Consumer Protection Act, defines a consumer as an individual, partnership, corporation, or governmental entity who seeks or acquires by purchase or lease any goods or services. Additionally, the Supreme Court recognized two requirements that must be established for a person to qualify as a consumer under the DTPA-Consumer Protection Act. One requirement is that the person must *226have sought or acquired goods or services by purchase or lease and secondly the goods or services purchased or leased must form the basis of the complaint. Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., 618 S.W.2d 535, 539 (Tex.1981). (Emphasis added). In the instant case, appellees satisfy both of these requirements. The pleadings allege that appellee Rubelle Hackworth sought or acquired the services of appellant-bank, i.e. the checking account with the collateral services and the goods or services purchased were the basis of the complaint. Appellees did complain of breach of express and implied warranties under the DTPA-Consumer Protection Act. Most recently, the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary nor is it required to seek or acquire goods and services from the bank in order to meet the statutory definition of consumer. Flenniken v. Longview Bank & Trust Co., 661 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.1983). Thus, the only requirement is that the goods or services sought or acquired by the consumer form the basis of the complaint. Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., 618 S.W.2d at 539. Our conclusion would be that appellant, Rubelle Hackworth, was a consumer under the DTPA-Consumer Protection Act.
We do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that the alleged cause of action under the DTPA-Consumer Protection Act for trebled damages and attorney’s fee was extinguished when Rubelle Hackworth died, and did not survive in favor of her estate or representatives. The appellant nor the appellees have submitted a case in their briefs which is directly in point; consequently, we review the question as one of first impression. Appellees’ cause of action asserted under DTPA-Consumer Protection Act claimed damages and being adversely affected by the deceptive trade practices of appellant bank. The DTPA-Consumer Protection Act does not provide for survival. Appellant argues that the “Act” creates a cause of action for the recovery of a statutory penalty and that as a result thereof, punitive statutorily created claims do not survive.
The Supreme Court of Texas in the early case of Peavy v. Goss, 90 Tex. 89, 92, 37 S.W. 317 (1896) in considering the right of a widow to maintain an action stated: “In a legal sense, a person is aggrieved by an act when a legal right is invaded by the act complained of.... In this case, the father being dead, the mother had the right to sue, ...” Id. 37 S.W. at 319. And later in a similar case Ellis v. Brooks, 101 Tex. 591, 102 S.W. 94 (1907), stated: “There may be but one right of recovery, but any party aggrieved may prosecute it, and this right of one cannot be abated by the death of another. The only action abated by death of the husband was that which accrued to him.” Id. 102 S.W. at 96. But, the reasoning for this ruling was that recovery by the husband might bar an action by the wife. “Her right is asserted in this action and it was unaffected by his death.” Id. 102 S.W. at 96.
In Basham v. Smith, 149 Tex. 279, 233 S.W.2d 297 (1950) the survival question arose when the defendant died prior to trial in an action under the Federal Rent Control Act. The court, after reviewing the federal cases in point, declared: “What, then, do we understand the federal decisions to reflect on the survival question before us?” Id. 233 S.W.2d at 301. “The more recent decisions apparently turn on whether the statutory cause of action should be considered a penalty_” Id. 233 S.W.2d at 301.
The Supreme Court of the United States considered the question of survival in United States v. Daniel, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 10, 12 L.Ed. 323 (1848), stating: “If the person charged has secured no benefit to himself at the expense of the sufferer, the cause of action is said not to survive; but where, by means of the offense, property is acquired which benefits the testator, there an action for the value of the property shall survive against the executor.” 47 U.S. at 13, 12 L.Ed. at 324. In Patton v. Brady, 184 U.S. 608, 22 S.Ct. 493, 46 L.Ed. 713 (1902), the Court quoted from the Daniel case: “In the absence of some special legislation the question in each case must be settled by the common law or the law of the state in *227which the cause of action arose.” 184 U.S. at 614, 22 S.Ct. at 495, 46 L.Ed. at 717.
We adopt the rationale of the Daniel case and conclude that appellee was damaged and suffered a loss when the three altered and one forged checks were cashed and charged to her account by appellant bank. It is clearly established that a bank that pays a forged or altered check must bear the loss and cannot charge the depositor’s account with the amounts paid. See Oak Cliff Bank & Trust Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 436 S.W.2d 165, 167-68 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1968, no writ). In Mahan Volkswagen, Inc. v. Hall, 648 S.W.2d 324 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no writ), the court addressed an issue on survival of a cause of action under TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 5525 (Vernon 1958) and the DTPA-Consumer Protection Act. The court stated: “... since there was no evidence of physical pain and mental anguish, the only damages which were properly trebled are the decedent’s funeral expenses and automobile damages.” Id. at 334 (On Motion for Rehearing). (Emphasis added). Thus the cause of action survived because appel-lee as the depositor suffered and appellant bank received a benefit.
We now respond to appellant’s contention that recovery under the “Act” constitutes a statutory penalty. We disagree since recovery of treble damages and attorney’s fees under the DTPA-Consumer Protection Act has been categorically characterized as remedial and not punitive. We are instructed by the Supreme Court in Woods v. Littleton, 554 S.W.2d 662 (Tex.1977), that in this appeal, this court must interpret the Consumer Protection Act and that: “The Legislature has declared that ‘[i]n all interpretations, the court shall look diligently for the intention of the Legislature, keeping in view at all times the old law, the evil and the remedy.’ ” Id. at 665. “This subchapter shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes, which are to protect consumers against false, misleading and deceptive business practices, unconscionable actions, and breaches of warranty and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection.” Id. at 665; DTPA-Consumer Protection Act § 17.44. Additionally, it has been held that the DTPA-Consumer Protection Act is remedial, broad in scope and application. See Ranger County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Guinn, 608 S.W.2d 730, 732 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1980, writ dism’d); DTPA-Consumer Protection Act § 17.43. The remedies provided in this subchapter are in addition to any other procedures or remedies provided for in any other law. See Jack Criswell Lincoln-Mercury v. Haith, 590 S.W.2d 616, 620 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.). More recently, the Supreme Court in Pennington v. Singleton, 606 S.W.2d 682 (Tex.1980) stated, “The legislature has provided for extra damage recovery so that consumers will have incentive to pursue their claims. Another purpose of liability in excess of actual damages is to deter violations of the Act.” Id. at 690. We conclude that the DTPA-Con-sumer Protection Act is remedial in scope and application and that appellees’ cause of action was not extinguished upon the death of Rubelle Hackworth.
The record reflects that the suggestion of death of plaintiff was filed with the trial court and the order substituting Mattie B. Denson, executrix, as party-plaintiff was rendered on November 6, 1980. Appellant filed a motion to compel joinder of parties, which motion was approved by the court by an order rendered April 29, 1981. Consequently, at appellant’s request, Mattie B. Denson and Lena Rabensburg, were the party-plaintiffs representing the estate of Rubelle Hackworth, deceased. Appellant did not file a plea in abatement pursuant to either TEX.R.CIV.P. 150 or TEX.R.CIV.P. 151. TEX.R.CIV.P. 150 provides in pertinent part:
Where the cause of action is one which survives, no suit shall abate because of the death of any party thereto before the verdict or decision of the court is rendered, but such suit may proceed to judgment as hereinafter provided.
*228TEX.R.CIV.P. 151 provides in pertinent part:
If the plaintiff dies, the heirs, or the administrator or executor of such decedent may appear and upon suggestion of such death being entered of record in open court, may be made plaintiff, and the suit shall proceed in his or their name.
It is our opinion that appellant consented to the substitution of Mattie Denson and Lena Rabensburg as party-plaintiffs, and waived the issue of survival by failure to file a plea in abatement before trial. See Booth v. Blanchette, 208 S.W.2d 105, 108-09 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1947, no writ). It is well settled that unless the opposing party puts in issue, by plea in abatement, the executor’s right to prosecute suit upon the death of the testatrix, the opposing party’s failure admits that the executor was duly authorized to act in the capacity in which he prosecuted the suit. Id. at 108-09.
Accordingly, we would affirm the award of treble damages and attorney’s fees as provided by the DTPA-Consumer Protection Act.