Austin Capital Collision, LLC// Barbara Pampalone v. Barbara Pampalone// Cross-Appellee, Austin Capital Collision, LLC and Eric Hinojosa
03-15-00447-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 18, 2015Background
- In 2005 Barbara Pampalone alleges she loaned $80,000 to the owners of the Capital Collision business (funds routed through her son Erik), but no promissory note or other signed writing specifying borrower, terms, rate, or 20‑year term exists.
- Capital Collision, G.P. (owned by two HABP corporate entities) made automated monthly payments to Pampalone from accounts controlled by Erik/ Eric; Erik later left and payments continued.
- Eric Hinojosa formed Austin Capital Collision, LLC in 2009; the HABP entities and Capital Collision, G.P. were dissolved in 2010. Austin Capital Collision continued some payments and used the same assumed name.
- Pampalone sued Austin Capital Collision, LLC and Eric Hinojosa; after a one‑day bench trial the court found an enforceable 20‑year loan (despite no signed note), held Austin Capital Collision liable by partial performance/assumption, and awarded $56,758.68 plus attorneys’ fees.
- Austin Capital Collision appeals, arguing the statute of frauds bars enforcement of (a) the unwritten 20‑year loan against the alleged original debtors and (b) any claim that the later LLC assumed that unwritten debt; it contends partial‑performance evidence is legally insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Pampalone's Argument | Austin Capital Collision's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the alleged $80,000, 20‑year loan is enforceable despite no signed writing | The loan was made and fully performed by Pampalone; historical payments and amortization schedules (and corroborating conduct) satisfy partial‑performance to take the oral loan out of the statute of frauds | The statute of frauds requires a signed writing for a >1‑year loan; no writing exists and the payments are not "solely referable" to the alleged loan, so partial‑performance does not apply | Trial court held the loan enforceable via partial performance; on appeal appellant argues that ruling is legally erroneous (statute of frauds and no‑evidence on sole‑referability) |
| Whether Austin Capital Collision, LLC assumed liability for the prior unwritten loan | Pampalone: the LLC, by using the same trade name, continuing payments, and course of conduct, assumed the loan and partially performed, making the debt enforceable against it | Austin Capital Collision: no writing shows assumption; payments were made from prior entity accounts and could be justified for other reasons; partial performance cannot be attributed solely to an assumption by the LLC | Trial court concluded the LLC assumed and partially performed; appellant challenges sufficiency of evidence to support assumption/partial‑performance |
| Whether partial performance can be found when another (Erik) previously sued claiming a different payee/claim | Pampalone: prior litigation does not negate that her performances and correspondence corroborate the loan and payments | Austin Capital Collision: Erik’s separate suit claiming the payments were owed to him shows payments could be for another purpose, defeating the ‘‘solely referable’’ requirement | Appellant argues Erik’s suit undermines the partial‑performance exception; trial court nonetheless relied on partial performance |
| Whether attorneys’ fees award should stand if liability is reversed | Pampalone: fees are justified as part of the judgment; fees also tied to conditional appeals | Austin Capital Collision: if liability is reversed, fees must be vacated because they flow from the judgment for plaintiff | Appellant requests reversal of fees if liability reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Corp. v. Breezevale Ltd., 82 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002) (partial‑performance and statute‑of‑frauds principles; payments must be unequivocally and solely referable to oral agreement)
- Dynegy, Inc. v. Yates, 422 S.W.3d 638 (Tex. 2013) (statute of frauds renders certain agreements unenforceable absent signed writing)
- Cruz v. Andrews Restoration, Inc., 364 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. 2012) (statute‑of‑frauds context for promises to answer for another)
- Choi v. McKenzie, 975 S.W.2d 740 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998) (no‑evidence/standard of review discussion)
- Taxel v. Bishop, 201 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (statute of frauds and related proof burdens)