Court Opinion

ID: 9683115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:22:48.27187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:45.088619
License: Public Domain

BARROW, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
It should be emphasized at the outset that the Texas Legislature did not adopt the definitions found in the California Statutes. The only definition of “consumer goods” given by the Texas Legislature is that found in Section 9.109 of the Uniform Commercial Code which provides: “Goods are ‘consumer goods’ if they are used or bought for use primarily for personal, family or household purposes.” This is a much narrower definition than the construction adopted by the majority.
It is seen that Professor Sampson, in his timely article pointing out distant forum abuses,1 said that the adoption of his suggested Subdivision 5(b) to Article 1995, Tex. Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. (Supp.1975), would include “all normal consumer transactions.” He illustrated such transactions as follows: “Thus, suit upon an obligation based on a credit purchase of any consumer good or service — whether an automobile, household furnishings, personal affects or a small loan — presumptively falls within exception 5(b).”
I agree wholeheartedly with the purpose accomplished by the enactment of Subdivision 5(b) of Article 1995, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. (Supp.1975). Furthermore, I agree that it is desirable that a suit for foreclosure of a paving lien should be brought in the county where the land is located. I cannot agree, however, with the majority holding that a paving lien is a “consumer transaction” within the purview of Subdivision 5(b) of Article 1995 simply because a family uses the street in front of the house to come and go and to better accomplish the countless personal, family or household trips.

. Sampson, Distant Forum Abuse in Consumer Transactions: A Proposed Solution, 51 Texas L.Rev. 269, 283 (1973).