Albert Lujan D/B/A Texas Wholesale Flower Company v. Navistar Financial Corporation
433 S.W.3d 699
Tex. App.2014Background
- NFC financed Lujan's purchase of five 4300M LP vans and held a purchase-money security interest; Lujan signed a loan agreement and a personal guaranty; the agreement chose Illinois law and provided local law controls for vehicle repossession and deficiency.
- Lujan defaulted; NFC repossessed and privately sold the vans; a deficiency remained, estimated between $31,000 and $35,500 per vehicle; NFC sued for breach of contract and attorney’s fees.
- Lujan answered with a general denial and did not plead duress or business coercion initially; NFC moved for summary judgment with evidence of the note, agreement, notices, and deficiency amount.
- Lujan amended his answer to raise a duress/business coercion defense; he filed an affidavit and a motion for summary judgment on the defense, asserting Illinois-law-based coercion and defective warranty threats.
- The trial court granted NFC’s summary judgment for breach and fees; it later reconsidered and again granted judgment on the record, denying Lujan’s cross-motions; Lujan appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NFC is entitled to summary judgment on breach of contract as a matter of law | Lujan contends summary judgment should be defeated if defenses raise issues. | NFC established the contract, its performance, breach, and damages. | NFC conclusively proved breach; judgment affirmed. |
| Whether Lujan raised a genuine issue of material fact on the duress/business coercion defense | Lujan asserts threat to breach warranty and economic pressure invalidated the contract. | There was no competent evidence of improper threats or coercion. | No genuine issue; defense fails. |
| Whether Lujan is entitled to summary judgment on his affirmative defense | Lujan argues every element of the defense is proven by his affidavit. | Evidence does not establish each element of duress or business coercion. | Lujan failed to meet elements; NFC loses nothing on the defense. |
| Whether Illinois law applies or Texas law governs the contract and its enforceability | Illinois law applies per the agreement. | Court can apply Texas/Illinois considerations; outcome unaffected. | Either law yields the same result; governing law immaterial to outcome. |
| Whether the record contains competent evidence to support the duress claim | Affidavit evidence shows improper threats by DeNolf/Navistar/NFC. | Affidavits are conclusory and insufficient to prove the threat or legal rights violated. | Record lacks competent evidence; no triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolton v. Dallas County Cmty. Coll. Dist., 185 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2005) (elements of economic duress require improper conduct or threats)
- Wright v. Sydow, 173 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (duress factors include threats to act where no legal right exists)
- Lunsford Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Crescent Real Estate Funding VIII, L.P., 77 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (nonmovant must raise genuine issues on elements of defense)
- Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. 1995) (defendant may defeat summary judgment by proving each element of an affirmative defense)
- Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. 1995) (to defeat summary judgment, nonmovant must raise issues on essential elements)
- Fielding v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 289 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. 2009) (summary-judgment standards and burdens in mixed-motions)
- Dorsett v. Hispanic Housing & Educ. Corp., 389 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (to recover on a promissory note, plaintiff must prove four elements)
- Wincheck v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs., Co., 232 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (breach of contract proof requires contract, signing, ownership, and due balance)
- Kyle v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 232 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (movant bears burden to prove all elements; nonmovant must respond)
- Haskell v. Haney, 193 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (affirmative-defense burden requires genuine issues on all elements)
- Am. Petrofina, Inc. v. Allen, 887 S.W.2d 829 (Tex. 1994) (affirmative-defense burden and evidence standards)