Iva Hodges v. First Texas Title Company, LLC
11-13-00209-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 31, 2015Background
- Hodges owned unimproved land plus royalty/mineral interests and negotiated sale to the Rosses through Panian & Mash agents.
- Hodges told the agent she would reserve mineral/royalty interests unless the sale hit her full asking price; the executed TREC sales contract Hodges signed did not contain a reservation clause.
- An agent (Charland‑Manske) allegedly told Hodges to sign and promised to add the reservation later; the contract stated it could be changed only by written agreement of the parties and advised consulting an attorney.
- First Texas Title (escrow/title agent) received the fully executed contract (without a reservation clause), handled closing, and was not involved in contract drafting or representing Hodges.
- At closing Hodges sought to add an amendment reserving minerals; the buyers refused to sign, Hodges signed the deed without a reservation, deed was recorded, and she later sued First Texas for fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, DTPA violations, and civil conspiracy.
- The trial court granted First Texas’s no‑evidence summary judgment on causation; the court of appeals affirmed, finding Hodges produced no competent evidence that First Texas’s conduct was the cause in fact of her alleged loss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation for fraud/negligence/breach of fiduciary duty | Hodges: First Texas misled her at closing and pressured her to sign; its acts caused loss of royalty/minerals | First Texas: It did not draft/negotiate contract; Hodges signed contract without reservation before First Texas's involvement; no evidence First Texas caused loss | Held: No evidence of cause in fact; summary judgment on causation proper |
| DTPA – producing cause | Hodges: First Texas’s misrepresentations/unconscionable acts produced her damages | First Texas: Producing cause not shown; same causation defects as tort claims | Held: DTPA claims fail for lack of producing cause |
| Civil conspiracy | Hodges: First Texas conspired with agents/buyers to force closing without reservation | First Texas: Conspiracy is derivative; underlying tort/DTPA claims fail | Held: Conspiracy claim fails because underlying claims lack causation |
| Overall entitlement to summary judgment (appeal) | Hodges: Genuine fact issues exist; summary judgment improper | First Texas: No‑evidence motion valid; alternatively traditional grounds supported | Held: Affirmed summary judgment on no‑evidence causation grounds; court did not decide traditional grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (standard for reviewing no‑evidence summary judgment)
- Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (legal sufficiency principles)
- IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of DeSoto, Tex., Inc. v. Mason, 143 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. 2004) (proximate‑cause elements: foreseeability and cause in fact)
- Travis v. City of Mesquite, 830 S.W.2d 94 (Tex. 1992) (definition of foreseeability in proximate cause)
- Leitch v. Hornsby, 935 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. 1996) (cause in fact must be proved by more than conjecture)
- Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Jefferson Assocs., 896 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. 1995) (producing cause in DTPA context)
- Laidlaw Waste Sys. (Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmer, 904 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1995) (pleadings are generally not competent summary judgment evidence)
- City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979) (same)