364 S.W.3d 415
Tex. App.2012Background
- Citibank sued Amo Compton, Jr. for breach of contract and account stated based on credit card debt.
- Citibank moved for summary judgment; evidence consisted of a records custodian's affidavit with over 170 pages of account records.
- Compton responded with an affidavit; the trial court sustained most objections; only the Rizor affidavit and attachments remained before the court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds of reliance on either breach of contract or account stated.
- On appeal, Compton challenged summary judgment on both claims; the court reviews de novo and can affirm if any grounds are meritorious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract summary judgment proper? | Compton argues his affidavit creates a genuine fact issue about breach. | Citibank contends the record supports no material fact and entitlement to judgment. | Affirmed; no reversible error found on breach claim since account stated support sufficed. |
| Account stated: existence of agreement to amount due and delivery of statements? | Compton claims no agreed amount and that statements were not delivered to him. | Citibank argues statements were mailed to the same address and reflect charges, payments, and fees. | Affirmed; statements and implied agreement shown; no dispute evidence needed for receipt under doctrine. |
| Implied contract vs express contract reliance. | Compton asserts if an express contract exists, recovery under implied contract is inappropriate. | Citibank maintains account stated does not require the lack of an express contract and can rely on conduct. | Affirmed; account stated evidence suffices; reliance on implied terms allowed where express contract exists. |
| Receipt/ownership of statements and agreement amount under account stated. | Compton argues material questions regarding delivery and amount remain. | Citibank relies on series of statements showing charges/payments and fees with implied promise to pay. | Affirmed; Morrison-like factual disputes rejected in favor of longitudinal statements establishing implied agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dulong v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 261 S.W.3d 890 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (account stated requires implied or express agreement evidenced by conduct and statements)
- Truly v. Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934 (Tex.1988) (unjust enrichment/quantum meruit limits where express contract exists)
- Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671 (Tex.2000) (cannot recover under implied contract where express contract exists)
- Woodard v. Southwest States, Inc., 384 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.1964) (same principle as Truly re express vs implied contracts)
- Musick v. Pogue, 330 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1959) (unjust enrichment/quasi-contract limitations when express contract exists)