James Ruth v. Collazo Holdings, LLC
11-19-00182-CV
Tex. App.Apr 30, 2021Background
- MRC Assisted Living purchased a parcel in 1996 and subdivided it into Greenbriar Addition Block One and Block Two.
- A 2016 Brown County tax foreclosure proceeded only against lots in Block Two; Collazo Holdings bought Block Two at the tax sale and received a constable’s deed.
- James Ruth (Appellant) produced a 2010 Special Warranty Deed from MRC conveying property to him, but that deed on its face covered Block One—not the Block Two lots sold at the tax sale.
- Ruth sued claiming a right of redemption and that correspondence with Collazo formed a contract to reclaim the property for $8,413; Collazo moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment.
- Trial court granted Collazo’s motion; Ruth appealed, arguing the trial court erred in granting a no-evidence summary judgment on his breach-of-contract claim (statute-of-frauds defense issue).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether no-evidence MSJ was improper because statute of frauds is an affirmative defense | Ruth: Collazo cannot obtain no-evidence MSJ on an affirmative defense it must prove | Collazo: The no-evidence portion can be treated as traditional MSJ on statute of frauds; alternatively, there is no evidence of a contract element | Affirmed: Court treats statute-of-frauds portion as traditional MSJ; Ruth failed to establish an exception or signed writing |
| Whether a valid, enforceable contract existed between Ruth and Collazo | Ruth: Written correspondence and check constituted acceptance of Collazo’s offer to sell back property for $8,413 | Collazo: Communications show parties discussed different tracts; no meeting of the minds and offer was rejected by counterpayment | No enforceable contract: lack of mutual assent (no meeting of the minds) as a matter of law |
| Whether Ruth held title to the Block Two lots (right of redemption) | Ruth: 2010 deed and later correspondence show he owned the property and could redeem | Collazo: The 2010 deed conveyed Block One only; no record transfers of Block Two before the tax sale | Ruth did not own Block Two; deed and four-corners analysis show he had title only to Block One |
| Whether statute of frauds was satisfied or inapplicable | Ruth: Exceptions to statute of frauds apply (asserted at hearing) | Collazo: Agreement concerns real property and no signed writing or recognized exception exists | Statute of frauds applies; Ruth failed to show a signed writing or exception, so contract unenforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaumont v. Prieto, 249 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1919) (principle that a counteroffer or differing payment may reject an offer)
- Dynegy, Inc. v. Yates, 422 S.W.3d 638 (Tex. 2013) (party pleading statute of frauds bears initial burden; burden shifts to opposing party to prove exception)
- Copano Energy, LLC v. Bujnoch, 593 S.W.3d 721 (Tex. 2020) (multiple documents may together satisfy statute of frauds if writings contain essential terms)
- Cohen v. McCutchin, 565 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. 1978) (written memorandum must be complete within itself as to essential terms to satisfy statute of frauds)
- Sci. Spectrum Inc. v. Martinez, 941 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. 1997) (defendant seeking traditional MSJ must negate at least one essential element of plaintiff’s cause of action)
- First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. 2017) (summary-judgment review is de novo)
- City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2011) (court may determine as a matter of law that multiple writings comprise a single contract)
- Piranha Partners v. Neuhoff, 596 S.W.3d 740 (Tex. 2020) (conveyed interests are determined from the deed’s four corners)