Bradford v. Vento, 99-0966

Citation48 S.W.3d 749,44 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 655
Decision Date02 August 2001
Docket NumberNo. 99-0966,99-0966
Parties(Tex. 2001) Bruce Bradford, et al., Petitioners v. Roell Vento, et al., Respondents
CourtSupreme Court of Texas
On Petitions for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Justice Abbott delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, Roell and Debra Vento sued the defendants alleging various causes of action -- including fraud, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, DTPA violations, and civil conspiracy -- arising out of their attempted purchase of a sports memorabilia store. We must decide whether legally sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict against Bruce Bradford, Simon Property Group, and Golden Ring Mall Company. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable for $1,274,000 in actual damages and $6,500,000 in exemplary damages. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable for $864,000 in actual damages and $2,520,000 in exemplary damages. 997 S.W.2d 713. We hold that no evidence supports any of the jury's liability findings, and we affirm in part and reverse in part the court of appeals' judgment and render judgment that the Ventos take nothing from Bradford, Simon, and Golden Ring.

I. Background

Tom Taylor operated Tom's Sports Cards in the Valle Vista Mall in Harlingen, Texas. He signed successive leases with the mall, each for a two or three month period. These leases required written consent from the mall before they could be assigned. In addition, Taylor paid a percentage of sales revenues to the mall.

Roell Vento, who had been interested in sports cards and sports memorabilia for several years, established a business relationship with Taylor and began selling items on consignment at the store. Sometime in early or mid-1994, Taylor and Vento became partners and the name of the business was changed to Collector's Choice. Taylor continued to negotiate and sign leases with the mall for Collector's Choice; Vento never personally signed a lease with the mall.

Once he became a partner in Collector's Choice, Vento moved much of his collection, along with several display cases, into the store. In August 1994, Taylor went out of town for several weeks and left Vento in charge. According to Vento, he and Taylor had agreed that Taylor would sell the store to Vento when he returned. Before he left, Taylor signed a new lease with the mall for the months of September and October. According to Vento, Taylor sold his share of the business to the Ventos on September 15, 1994 for $7,000, and signed a contract to that effect. But after the alleged sale on September 15, Taylor continued to go to the store and wait on customers, which seemed "odd" to Vento.

On October 4, Vento went to Bradford's office and paid him the October rent with a $770 cashier's check, which the mall required because Taylor had written some bad checks. According to Vento, he told Bradford that he had bought the store and showed Bradford a written contract signed by Taylor that indicated the Ventos' intent to purchase the store. Vento then asked Bradford about a long-term lease. Bradford congratulated Vento and mentioned that he already knew that Vento was purchasing the store. Bradford then consulted his files, told Vento that the store's space "should" rent for $2,700, and that $770 was a "decent deal." He also said that a long-term lease was a bad idea because sports card stores generally do not do well in malls, and said he would "take care of" Vento in January.

That afternoon, Vento questioned Taylor about his continued presence at the store. Taylor denied that he had sold the store to Vento, contending that the $7,000 was merely a reimbursement for losses Vento caused when Taylor was away. They had an altercation in the mall, prompting Vento to call the police. Taylor left before the police arrived, and Vento never told Bradford about the dispute. Either on October 5 or early on October 6, Taylor approached Bradford and informed him that he still owned the store and that there could be trouble with Vento. Bradford alerted the mall's security guard and directed him to remain near the store.

On October 6, Taylor and Vento had a second confrontation in the mall. Taylor and his wife were waiting outside the store when Vento arrived. The mall's security officer was at the store, and Bradford was nearby. When Vento unlocked the store, he, the Taylors, and Bradford entered, and there was a heated discussion between Vento and Taylor. Either Taylor or Taylor's wife called the police, who soon arrived. The police questioned Bradford, and accounts differ whether they asked him who owned the store or whose name was on the lease. According to Vento, Bradford told the police that Taylor owned the store. The police officers offered different versions of what they asked and what Bradford said. According to one officer, Bradford told him that Taylor owned the store and that he did not want Vento in the mall since he was causing a scene. According to the other officer, Bradford said that Taylor was on the lease, and that he wanted to file criminal trespassing charges against Vento if he returned. Eventually, the police asked Vento to leave because he could not prove his ownership. Taylor later changed the store's name back to Tom's Sports Cards and, on October 17, signed a new lease with the mall for November and December.

On November 8, the Ventos filed suit for damages against Taylor, Bradford, and the mall, and sought a temporary restraining order, a temporary injunction, and an accounting. On November 23, Vento obtained a temporary injunction restoring the business to him, and thereafter resumed operation of the store. Vento testified that the value of the merchandise in the store was $35,000 to $40,000 less than it had been on October 6.

In December, Vento paid the usual monthly rent of $770, but failed to pay either the holiday increase of $1,430, which was required by the lease, or the store's past-due amounts, both of which together totaled over $4,000. When Taylor's lease expired on December 31, Vento remained in the mall but did not obtain a new lease. After posting the appropriate notices, the mall changed the locks on January 19.

Soon after being locked out, Vento made arrangements for another man, Louis Martin, to buy the business for between $6,000 and $9,000. Martin agreed to use part of the purchase price to pay the store's outstanding debts. But Martin wanted to see an inventory of the business before closing the deal. Martin, accompanied by Vento, went to the mall office with a check to pay the past-due amounts and asked to view the store. Vento testified that a mall employee told him that the only way they would be allowed in the store was for Vento to sign a statement releasing the mall from all liability.1 Vento refused, and he and Martin left. A few days later, Martin returned to the mall, and Bradford permitted him to enter the store and view its contents. After seeing the merchandise, Martin declined to go through with the deal. Soon after, Vento was allowed in the store to recover his property without signing a release.

The Ventos proceeded to trial against Taylor, Bradford, Simon, and Golden Ring on their claims of fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, DTPA violations, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, and civil conspiracy. The jury returned a verdict favorable to the Ventos on each issue. Bradford, Simon, and Golden Ring filed several post-trial motions contending that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict. The trial court overruled the motions and rendered judgment on the verdict against Bradford, Simon, Golden Ring, and Taylor, jointly and severally, for $1,274,000 in actual damages and $6,500,000 in exemplary damages. Bradford, Simon, and Golden Ring appealed; Taylor did not.

The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. 997 S.W.2d 713. Specifically, the court of appeals found no evidence of civil conspiracy, but otherwise affirmed the jury's liability findings, and held Bradford, Simon, Golden Ring, and Taylor jointly and severally liable based on the single injury rule. After correcting a mathematical error regarding punitive damages, the court of appeals rendered judgment for the Ventos against Taylor, Bradford, Simon, and Golden Ring, jointly and severally, for $864,000 in actual damages and $2,520,000 in exemplary damages.

Bradford, Simon, and Golden Ring filed a petition for review challenging, among other things, the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict on fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, and DTPA violations.2 The Ventos filed a petition for review challenging the court of appeals' judgment as to the civil conspiracy claim. We granted both petitions for review.

II. Standard of Review

In reviewing a "no evidence" point, we must view the evidence in a light that tends to support the finding of the disputed fact and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Weirich v. Weirich, 833 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex. 1992). Because Bradford, Simon, and Golden Ring did not object to the jury charge, we review the sufficiency of the evidence in light of the charge submitted. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sturges, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ n.5 (Tex. 2001); City of Fort Worth v. Zimlich, 29 S.W.3d 62, 68 (Tex. 2000).

III. Fraud

Bradford, Simon, and Golden Ring first contend that the court of appeals erred in upholding the jury's fraud finding. The trial court submitted the following issue to the jury without objection:

QUESTION NO. 1

Did any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
713 cases
  • Olson v. Major League Baseball
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 21, 2022
    ...Ct. App. 1994) ; accord Buffalo-Water 1, LLC v. Fid. Real Estate Co., LLC , 481 Mass. 13, 111 N.E.3d 266, 277 (2018) ; Bradford v. Vento , 48 S.W.3d 749, 755 (Tex. 2001). Under Restatement Second of Torts Section 551(2) :[o]ne party to a business transaction is under a duty to exercise reas......
  • Cronus Offshore, Inc. v. Kerr Mcgee Oil & Gas
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • February 9, 2004
    ...as a result of acting without knowledge of the undisclosed fact. See Alcan Aluminum Corp., 133 F.Supp.2d at 498; Bradford v. Vento, 48 S.W.3d 749, 754-55 (Tex.2001); Hoggett v. Brown, 971 S.W.2d 472, 486 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. denied); see also Custom Leasing, Inc. v. T......
  • Gil Ramirez Grp., LLC v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • November 18, 2013
    ...satisfy the elements of the tort, including that these defendants intended to interfere with GRG's JOC contract. See Bradford v. Vento, 48 S.W.3d 749, 756-58 (Tex. 2001). Accordingly, the Court is prepared to consider summary judgment as to these claims as well. However, none of these defen......
  • McCabe v. Daimler AG & Mercedes-Benz United States, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • June 7, 2013
    ...rule, a failure to disclose information does not constitute fraud unless there is a duty to disclose the information.” Bradford v. Vento, 48 S.W.3d 749, 755 (Tex.2001). “Thus, silence may be equivalent to a false representation only when the particular circumstances impose a duty on the par......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas DTPA Forms & Practice
    • March 31, 2016
    ...(Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1979, no writ), §7.22 Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. 1993), §§5.15, 10.12 Bradford v. Vento , 48 S.W.3d 749, 755 (Tex. 2001), §§1.02.8, 2.02, 10.06, 15.04 TABLE OF CASES A-3 Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co ., 216 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2006), §11.03......
  • Trial: Part Two Court's Charge to Judgment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas DTPA Forms & Practice
    • March 31, 2016
    ...when there is a duty to disclose information, the failure to do so may support a fraud cause of action. See Bradford v. Vento , 48 S.W.3d 749, 755 (Tex. 2001). §10.06 DTPA FORMS AND PRACTICE GUIDE 10-20 [a] FORM: Common law fraud: general question Did [defendant] commit fraud in his [her] d......
  • Appendix - Desk Book
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas DTPA Forms & Practice
    • March 31, 2016
    ...which amounted to more than mere puffing and supported jury findings of violations of DTPA §§17.46(b) (5) and (7). Bradford v. Vento, 48 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. 2001). This case involved the purchase of a business located in a mall. The plaintiff buyer alleged that the seller and the mall engaged ......
  • Business Opportunities and Franchises
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas DTPA Forms & Practice
    • March 31, 2016
    ...when there is a duty to disclose information, the failure to do so may support a fraud cause of action. See Bradford v. Vento, 48 S.W.3d 749, 755 (Tex. 2001); Trenholm v. Ratcliff , 646 S.W.2d 927 (Tex. 1983). If a stock or real estate transaction is involved, a claim may exist for statutor......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT