516 S.W.3d 170
Tex. App.2017Background
- Reyes family lived on a half-acre lot with a mobile home on Tornillo tract from 1994–2011, paid Burrus $500 down and $200/month; they made ~ $22,000 of improvements (fence, additions, plumbing, slab, trees).
- Parties disputed nature of their arrangement: Reyes family said seller-financed contract-for-deed (purchase); Burrus said month-to-month rental.
- Burrus sold the parcel to Tornillo DTP in 2012; demolition/encroachment followed, Reyes settled with Tornillo DTP for $64,600 and vacated; Reyes later sued Burrus for breach, statutory fraud, money had and received, and Property Code violations.
- Jury found Burrus agreed to sell, breached, the oral agreement was enforceable under the partial-performance exception to the statute of frauds, awarded damages on breach ($10), statutory fraud ($22,802), money had and received ($24,000), liquidated damages under Tex. Prop. Code §5.077(d)(1), and attorneys’ fees; Burrus’s counterclaims were rejected.
- On appeal Burrus challenged (1) sufficiency re: partial performance (valuable & permanent improvements), (2) lack of meeting of the minds/essential terms, (3) statute of limitations on statutory fraud, (4) entitlement to §5.077 liquidated damages, and (5) money-had-and-received/double recovery. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reyes) | Defendant's Argument (Burrus) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Partial-performance exception to Statute of Frauds — were improvements "permanent and valuable" with seller's consent? | Reyes: installed fence, additions, plumbing, slab, trees, paid >$22k; Burrus knew/consented; partial performance removes oral sale from statute of frauds. | Burrus: expenditures were only a list; did not prove increases in market value; many improvements later removed/dismantled so not permanent/valuable. | Jury verdict that improvements were valuable, permanent, and made with Burrus’s consent supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence; appellate court affirms. |
| Contract formation / essential terms / meeting of the minds | Reyes: parties acted like a sale (possession, payments, improvements); address and fence/survey fixed the parcel; nonessential financing terms can be left open. | Burrus: no agreement on essential terms (exact boundaries, interest, maturity, taxes); court should decide unenforceable as a matter of law and not submit to jury. | Trial court implicitly found terms sufficiently definite; factual disputes resolved by jury — appellate court affirms submission and verdict. |
| Statute of limitations on statutory fraud claim | Reyes: limitations not shown as matter of law; accrual date disputed (disagreement when loan paid off; Burrus didn’t provide accounting). | Burrus: claim accrued when $21,000 paid (argues payoff in 2006), so suit in 2012 was untimely. | Burrus failed to obtain jury finding on accrual; factual dispute existed about accrual date; limitations defense waived; claim not barred as matter of law. |
| Liquidated damages under Tex. Prop. Code §5.077(d) ("two or more transactions") | Reyes: Burrus conducted multiple contract-for-deed transactions (e.g., Archuleta in 1994), so daily liquidated damages apply for failure to provide annual accounting. | Burrus: second transaction must be enforceable; oral contracts voidable under statute of frauds so cannot count; also her conduct insufficient to show two transactions within 12 months. | Court interprets §5.077 to include voidable oral executory contracts and finds sufficient evidence of another oral transaction; liquidated damages award affirmed. |
| Money had and received; double recovery concern | Reyes: Burrus made $83k profit on sale; equity requires disgorgement/pro rata share; award distinct from statutory-fraud damages tied to improvements. | Burrus: no enforceable contract → no entitlement; settlement with Tornillo DTP already compensated Reyes; award duplicates statutory-fraud damages. | Jury reasonably found Reyes entitled to $24,000; not duplicative because it compensates for profit (unjust enrichment) distinct from statutory-fraud damages for improvements; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyert v. Tauber, 834 S.W.2d 60 (Tex. 1992) (sets elements for partial-performance exception to statute of frauds)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (jury as sole judge of credibility; appellate standard for factual sufficiency)
- McGinty v. Hennen, 372 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. 2012) (limits on damages proof; not controlling for partial-performance inquiry here)
- T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. 1992) (essential contract terms requirement)
- Texas Builders v. Keller, 928 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. 1996) (sufficiency of property description for real estate contracts)
- Ratsavong v. Menevilay, 176 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2005) (testimony about repairs/improvements can satisfy "valuable and permanent" requirement)
- Elizondo v. Gomez, 957 S.W.2d 862 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1997) (performance supplies key to what was promised for oral real-estate bargains)