Court Opinion

ID: 9761043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:30:00.839916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:19.828626
License: Public Domain

CADENA, Chief Justice,
dissenting in part.
Appellant’s complaint that the evidence does not support the award of treble damages is justified.
The actual damage suffered by appellee was $5,000.00. Under § 17.50(b)(1) of DTPA, appellee was entitled to receive an additional award of $2,000.00 (twice that portion of actual damages not exceeding $1,000.00), for a total award of $7,000.00.
In order to be entitled to an award of “three times the amount of actual damages,” appellee had the burden of proving that appellant’s conduct was committed “knowingly.” The majority opinion refers to no testimony which even suggests that the representations were made with knowledge of their falsity.
The fact that actual awareness of falsity may be inferred where “objective manifestations indicate that a person acted with actual awareness,” is, of course, true. But it is irrelevant in a case where, as here, there is no evidence of “objective manifestations” indicating such awareness. See Mann v. Fitzhugh-Straus Medina Ranch, 640 S.W.2d 367 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1982, no writ).
There can be no question that it was represented that the house would be of a particular standard, quality or grade. The jury found that this representation was, in fact, false. But proof of a false, misleading or deceptive representation is not evidence that the representation was made with awareness that it was false, misleading or deceptive.
The majority opinion recites: “Thus, we find sufficient probative evidence of knowing misrepresentation to support the jury findings and the judgment.” The only evidence set out in the opinion is that which shows that appellant represented that the house would be built in a good, substantial and workmanlike manner, that appellee re*720lied on such representation, and that the house was not built in a good, substantial and workmanlike manner.
Since the fact that a representation proved to be false is no evidence that it was made with knowledge of its falsity, there is no evidence to support the finding of a knowing misrepresentation.
Since appellee proved only a right to recover $7,000.00, the award of $18,000.00 was clearly error.