Quran Bryant, Stephen A. Barfield, and Grace Everett v. Dennis J. Cady, Ind. and as Trustee of the Dennis J. Cady Living Trust D/B/A Cady Enterprises
445 S.W.3d 815
Tex. App.2014Background
- Three separate Wichita Falls real property transactions in 2006 (Bryant, Barfield) and 2010 (Everett) where leases ran ten years and sale agreements followed; receipts acknowledged $1,000 payments tied to the agreements; the receipts stated those payments bound all parties to the agreements; trial court granted summary judgment that the transactions were not executory contracts; appellants argued the documents constitute executory contracts under Tex. Prop. Code §5.062; appeal proceeded challenging the trial court’s characterization and seeking accounting damages and attorneys’ fees; the appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the transactions are executory contracts under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bryant and Barfield sale agreements are supported by consideration | Bryant and Barfield agreements have consideration via the $1,000 receipts. | Cady argued there was no consideration for sale agreements without mutual obligations. | Yes; there is sufficient consideration. |
| Whether Bryant, Barfield, and Everett documents are executory contracts | Leases with concurrent sales options create executory contracts. | Some documents are typical real estate contracts not executory. | All three transactions are executory contracts. |
| Whether Everett’s agreement is an executory contract or a typical real estate contract | Everett’s contract functions as an option to purchase with a lease. | Everett’s is a typical real estate contract binding both sides. | Everett’s contract is executory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morton v. Nguyen, 412 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. 2013) (discusses executory contract concepts for real property)
- Flores v. Millennium Interests, Ltd., 185 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. 2005) (distinguishes contract-for-deed from conventional real estate contract)
- Sheshunoff Mgmt. Servs. v. Johnson, 209 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. 2006) (collateral promises can be supported by related instruments)
- Ward v. Malone, 115 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003) (contract-for-deed vs. typical real estate contract distinction)
- Comeaux v. Suderman, 93 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (two components of an option contract)
- Shook v. Walden, 368 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (contract-for-deed analysis in real property disputes)
- In re Green Tree Servicing LLC, 275 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (statutory interpretation of contracts and ambiguity)