Nicolas Fibela v. Karen M. Wood
657 S.W.3d 664
Tex. App.2022Background
- In Feb. 2015 Fibela and Wood signed a written residential resale contract for 300 Belva Way (sale price $130,000; closing April 10, 2015); Fibela alleged he performed and sought damages and specific performance.
- Wood answered asserting statute-of-limitations and mutual mistake, and later moved for combined traditional and no-evidence summary judgment, attaching deed history and her affidavit claiming she did not hold record title when the contract was signed.
- After Wood’s SJ, Fibela amended to add a statutory fraud claim (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 27.01), alleging Wood falsely represented she was record owner and could convey title.
- The trial court granted Wood’s motion in full and ordered Fibela take nothing; Fibela appealed pro se.
- The court of appeals affirmed the no-evidence summary judgment on the statutory fraud claim but reversed and remanded as to the breach-of-contract claim, finding (1) lack of title at signing does not automatically render the contract unenforceable and (2) Wood failed to conclusively prove unilateral mistake.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fibela) | Defendant's Argument (Wood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| No-evidence challenge to statutory fraud elements (false knowledge, intent, reliance, damages) | Fibela: Wood knew she lacked title and knowingly misrepresented ownership; he relied and was damaged | Wood: No evidence she knew she lacked title or knowingly misrepresented; no evidence of intent or damages | Court: Affirmed SJ — Fibela failed to raise fact issues on Wood’s knowledge/intent and on damages; no-evidence SJ proper |
| Validity/enforceability of contract when seller lacked record title at formation | Fibela: The written contract demonstrates mutual assent and an enforceable agreement; seller’s lack of title at signing doesn’t void the contract | Wood: No meeting of the minds because she did not own the property at contract formation; contract unenforceable | Court: Reversed SJ — presence of written, agreed terms establishes an express contract; lack of record title at signing alone does not negate enforceability |
| Unilateral mistake as affirmative defense to rescind contract | Fibela: (opposes rescission; disputes elements) | Wood: She mistakenly believed she could convey the property due to daughter’s default; mistake warrants rescission | Court: Reversed SJ — Wood did not conclusively establish all elements of unilateral mistake; trial court erred granting SJ on that defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (no-evidence summary judgment reviewed first when combined)
- USAA Texas Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, 545 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. 2018) (elements of breach of contract)
- Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Lufkin Indus., 573 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. 2019) (false-promise fraud requires proof defendant had no intent to perform)
- MTrust Corp. N.A. v. LJH Corp., 837 S.W.2d 250 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1992) (seller’s bad or imperfect title at contract formation does not automatically void a good-faith sale)