Amouri v. Southwest Toyota Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 April 2000
• Docket Number: No. 06-99-00099-CV,06-99-00099-CV
• Citation: 20 S.W.3d 165
• Parties: (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000) ABDOLHOSSEIN AMOURI, Appellant v. SOUTHWEST TOYOTA, INC., d/b/a STERLING McCALL TOYOTA, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 165

20 S.W.3d 165 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000)

ABDOLHOSSEIN AMOURI, Appellant v. SOUTHWEST TOYOTA, INC., d/b/a STERLING McCALL TOYOTA, Appellee

No. 06-99-00099-CV

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

Submitted February 7, 2000

Decided April 18, 2000

On Appeal from the 190th Judicial District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court No. 97-51371

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Before Cornelius, C.J., Grant and Ross, JJ.

OPINION

Opinion by Chief Justice Cornelius

Abdolhossein Amouri appeals from an adverse summary judgment rendered in his suit against Southwest Toyota, Inc. d/b/a Sterling McCall Toyota (Southwest). Amouri contends (1) the evidence raised a fact issue as to his claim that Southwest fraudulently induced him to sign a lease contract, and (2) the trial court improperly considered a defective transcript of Amouri's deposition in granting summary judgment. We reverse the judgment and remand the case for trial.

On September 4, 1997, Amouri visited Southwest, a Toyota dealership, intending to purchase a vehicle. A Southwest salesman, Apolo Lucci, assisted Amouri. Amouri selected a vehicle from the lot, test drove it, and decided he would buy it. Amouri contends that he and Lucci discussed only his purchasing the vehicle and the payment terms, and that they never discussed leasing the vehicle. To purchase the vehicle, Amouri proposed that he trade in his own car and make a substantial down payment and first installment payment. Nevertheless, after some discussion between Lucci and Southwest's managers, Lucci gave Amouri a document titled "Closed End Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement" and asked him to sign it. The document was in fact a lease agreement rather than a purchase agreement. Amouri signed the document believing he was purchasing the vehicle. Amouri traded in his car and made a substantial down payment and first installment payment, and then drove home in the vehicle he believed he had purchased. Several days later, a friend of Amouri's, a former car salesman, inspected the paperwork Southwest had given Amouri and suggested that Amouri confirm that he had actually purchased the vehicle, rather than having leased it. Amouri telephoned Lucci, who reassured him that he had purchased the vehicle. The following day, Amouri returned to Southwest, where he met with several managers, each of whom told him that he had leased the vehicle. Amouri explained that if he were not purchasing the vehicle, he wanted the contract voided. He requested the return of his money and trade-in vehicle and offered to pay for his temporary use of the new vehicle. The managers refused his requests and stated there was nothing they could do. Amouri also requested a complete copy of the lease contract, but was told that Southwest did not keep contracts and that he would receive a copy in two weeks. Within several days, Amouri returned the vehicle and keys to Southwest.

In October 1997, Amouri filed suit against Southwest for breach of contract, common law fraud, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act-Consumer Protection Act, seeking the recovery of his initial down payment, installment payment, car rental expenses, and monetary damages for the damage done to his trade-in vehicle. In March 1999, Southwest filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that, as a matter of law, Amouri could not establish breach of contract or fraud. The trial court granted summary judgment, which Amouri now appeals only on the ground that summary judgment was improper because there is a genuine fact issue as to his claim that Southwest fraudulently induced him to sign the lease contract. In his first amended petition, Amouri alleged that Lucci and other Southwest employees induced him to sign the lease contract by fraudulently representing that they were assisting him in the purchase of the vehicle and by deliberately remaining silent when they directed him to sign the lease contract. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 45, Southwest requests that this Court sanction Amouri for filing a frivolous appeal.

The motion for summary judgment contains language indicative of both a traditional and a no evidence summary judgment motion. In the motion, Southwest contended that, as a matter of law, Amouri cannot establish fraud because the law charges parties with knowledge of the contents of contracts they sign, and that rule forecloses proof of any representation contrary to the terms of the contract, as well as any reliance on a representation. It also contended that Amouri's case presented "no evidence" of a false representation or reliance, elements of a fraud cause of action. Southwest also asserted that the rule of law previously stated made it impossible for there to be any evidence of these. We therefore construe that portion of the motion to be a traditional summary judgment motion.¹ In addition, Southwest contended that in order for Amouri to successfully assert a fraud claim, he must have presented evidence that Southwest prevented him from reading the lease, or physically forced him to sign it. It suggested that Amouri presented no evidence of these, arguing that his own deposition testimony belies any such charges. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(a)(i) requires a motion to be specific in alleging a lack of evidence on an essential element of the plaintiff's alleged cause of action. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166(a)(i); In re Mohawk Rubber Co., 982 S.W.2d 494, 497 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1998, orig. proceeding). With this contention, Southwest did not specifically challenge any essential element of Amouri's fraud cause of action. For that reason, the motion is insufficient as a no evidence motion, and we will review it under the traditional summary judgment standard. See Weaver v. Highlands Ins. Co., 4 S.W.3d 826 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet. h.).

The standard of review for traditional summary judgments is well-established. A defendant who moves for summary judgment must demonstrate that no material issue of fact exists as to at least one essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action, and that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Arnold v. National County Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 725 S.W.2d 165, 166-67 (Tex. 1987). The defendant may do this by producing summary judgment evidence showing that at least one element of the plaintiff's cause of action has been conclusively negated, or by pleading and conclusively proving each essential element of an affirmative defense. Friendswood Dev. Co. v. McDade + Co., 926 S.W.2d 280, 282 (Tex. 1996). In deciding if the defendant has met its burden, we indulge every reasonable inference from the evidence and resolve all doubts in favor of the nonmovant. Montgomery v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309, 311 (Tex. 1984).

Fraudulent inducement is a type of fraud claim that shares the same elements as a simple fraud claim. DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d 670, 688 (Tex. 1990); Carr v. Christie, 970 S.W.2d 620, 624 (Tex. App.-Austin 1998, pet. denied). Thus, to prove fraudulent inducement, Amouri had to show (1) that Southwest made a material misrepresentation that was false, (2) that it was either known to be false when made or was asserted without knowledge of its truth, and (3) that it was intended to be acted on, was relied on, and caused injury. Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers and Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex. 1998); DeSantis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d at 688-89. In its motion, Southwest attacked the elements of misrepresentation and reliance. Citing two cases, Brown v. Aztec Rig Equip., Inc., 921 S.W.2d 835 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied), and Plains Cotton Coop. Ass'n v. Wolf, 553 S.W.2d 800 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.), it contended that it was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because the law charges all competent persons with knowledge of the contents of the contracts they sign. According to Southwest, this rule necessarily forecloses any false representations contrary to the terms of the contract or any reliance thereon. It contends that the failure to read a contract constitutes negligence on the part of the signor, for which the signor is not excused, and that even illiteracy will not relieve a party of the consequences of his contract. At oral argument, counsel for Southwest cited Fisher Controls Int'l, Inc. v. Gibbons, 911 S.W.2d 135 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied), as support for its contention that, because of this rule of law, fraudulent inducement cannot be established by misrepresentations that contradict the terms of a contract. Rather, it contends that fraudulent inducement is proven sometimes by evidence of a misrepresentation, but most often by evidence of a concealment of a material fact that is not thereafter contradicted by the written terms of a subsequent contract. In other words, Southwest argues that the concealment used to induce the agreement must involve something not provided for by the contract.²

The general rule is that every person who has the capacity to enter into a contract is held to know what words were used in the contract, to know their meaning, and to understand their legal effect. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North Am. v. W. L. Macatee & Sons, 129 Tex. 166, 101 S.W.2d 553, 556 (1937); accord: Vera v. North Star Dodge Sales, Inc., 989 S.W.2d 13, 17 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.); Brown v. Aztec Rig Equip., Inc., 921 S.W.2d at 845; Nguyen Ngoc Giao v. Smith & Lamm, P.C., 714 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no writ). The consequence of this rule is that a party to a contract may not successfully claim that he believed the provisions of the contract were different from those plainly set out in the agreement or that he did not understand the meaning of the language used. Brown v. Aztec Rig Equip., Inc., 921 S.W.2d at 946; ...