Burruss v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 6254
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Burruss, pro se, appeals from a trial court summary judgment in favor of Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.
- Citibank sued Burruss for breach of contract and account stated to recover $3,719.58.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on Citibank’s breach of contract and/or account stated theories; basis not specified.
- Citibank supported its motion with Abby Motley’s affidavit and attached exhibits.
- Burruss argues the motion should be defeated for issues including contradictory interest rates and how contracts were offered; the court grants relief to Citibank on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contradictions between contract terms and statements | Burruss claims the rates in Citibank’s agreements contradicted rates charged. | Citibank maintains adequate record support; contradictions not properly shown in record. | First issue held against Burruss (inadequately briefed). |
| Evidence that agreements were offered to Burruss | Burruss says Citibank failed to prove the agreements were presented to him. | Citibank attached exhibits; Burruss's citations are improper. | Second issue held against Burruss (inadequately briefed). |
| Scope of suit on an account (common law) | Burruss argues account stated does not fall within common-law account. | Record shows Citibank sought summary judgment on breach of contract and account stated; grounds not specified. | Third issue held against Burruss; moot since grounds not separately reversed. |
| Implied vs express contract basis for judgment | Burruss posits judgment based on implied contract should be precluded by express contract allegations. | Judgment not shown to be based on implied contract; express contract alleged. | Fourth issue held against Burruss (no reversible error shown). |
| Reliance on express contract terms for interest/fees | Burruss asserts he could rely on contract terms, not account-stated charges. | Even if resolved in Burruss’s favor, outcome remains unchanged. | Fifth issue held against Burruss (outcome unchanged). |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Mr. Property Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (summary-judgment standards and burdens)
- City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979) (requirement to respond in writing to preserve objections)
- Granada Biosciences, Inc. v. Barrett, 958 S.W.2d 215 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1997) (reversal standards when multiple grounds exist in motion)