Holloway, Clay M. v. Dekkers, Gideon and Twin Lakes Golf Course, Inc.
380 S.W.3d 315
Tex. App.2012Background
- Holloway sued Dekkers and Twin Lakes for breach of contract and fraud after termination from head golf professional position.
- Twin Lakes operates a Texas golf course; Dekkers is an officer.
- July 2008 meetings proposed a three-year term with $60k salary, vacation/sick leave, and dues/education; later one-year term was proposed.
- July 23, 2008 Holloway signed a document outlining benefits but it was not signed by Twin Lakes or Dekkers.
- Holloway started August 5, 2008; he was terminated September 30, 2008; later, Holloway sought relief.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding the alleged agreement fell within the statute of frauds; Holloway’s other evidentiary challenges were unresolved on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the alleged contract falls within the statute of frauds | Holloway argues the agreement could be performed within a year and is enforceable. | Appellees contend the agreement is within the statute of frauds and unenforceable. | Yes; the agreement falls within the statute of frauds and is unenforceable. |
| Breach-of-contract and whether there was a valid contract | Holloway claims a binding contract existed. | No enforceable contract due to statute of frauds. | Breach claim fails due to unenforceable agreement. |
| Fraudulent-inducement given no binding contract | Dekkers deceived Holloway about term and future terms to move to Texas. | Fraud claim requires a contract; none enforceable. | Fails as a matter of law because no enforceable contract. |
| Partial performance as an exception to the statute of frauds | Holloway performed duties; Dekkers accepted. | Rendition of services under salary does not qualify as partial performance. | Partial performance does not remove the contract from the statute of frauds. |
| Objections to summary-judgment evidence and Holloway’s affidavit | Affidavit supports factual disputes. | Affidavit statements are conclusory or contrary to deposition. | Trial court’s evidentiary rulings upheld; do not affect the outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. 2001) (statute of frauds defense; proof requirements for written contracts)
- Sysco Food Servs., Inc. v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. 1994) (governs summary-judgment standards and evidentiary review)
- Niday v. Niday, 643 S.W.2d 919 (Tex. 1982) (one-year rule under statute of frauds; writing requirement)
- Gerstacker v. Blum Consulting Eng'rs, Inc., 884 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994) (contract duration can be measured by performance; exception to statute of frauds)
- Exxon Corp. v. Breezevale Ltd., 82 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002) (equitable partial performance considerations; contract enforceability)