Bill Wyly Dev. v. Smith
| Docket Number | 14-22-00433-CV |
| Decision Date | 06 July 2023 |
| Parties | BILL WYLY DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND WILLIAM WYLY, Appellants v. ERON SMITH AND HANNA SMITH, Appellees |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 212th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14CV1126-A
Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Spain
MAJORITY OPINION
Appellants Bill Wyly Development, Inc. ("Wyly Development") and William Wyly ("Wyly") appeal an adverse judgment on claims of trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Appellees Eron and Hanna Smith claimed that Wyly threatened to ruin their lives and damaged their Tiki Island property after the Smiths declined to hire Wyly Development to build a house on the property. A jury found appellants liable, and the trial court signed a judgment awarding the Smiths $32,500 plus interest and costs.
Appellants assert two issues. First, appellants contend that the trial court erred by denying their motion to disregard the jury's findings on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because there is no evidence (a) that Wyly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, and (b) that the Smiths suffered severe emotional distress as a result. We sustain this issue because we conclude that Wyly's complained-of conduct was not extreme and outrageous, as Texas courts understand and have construed those terms. We render judgment that the Smiths take nothing on their intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
In their second issue, appellants urge that the trial court erroneously denied their motion for new trial because the evidence is factually insufficient to support the jury's award for trespass damages. We overrule this issue because the damage award is not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust.
Accordingly we reverse and render in part, and affirm as modified in part.
The Smiths and Wyly met in 2013 when the Smiths were looking to purchase a lot on Tiki Island. The Smiths found a lot they liked and followed directions on a yard sign to Wyly's office. Wyly explained that the lot was owned by another person and that his company had built homes on other lots in the area. The Smiths purchased the lot from a third party.
The Smiths met with Wyly several times to discuss using his company to build their home, but they ultimately decided not to go forward with Wyly Development. They informed Wyly of their decision in June 2014. Two or three days later, while the Smiths sat in their pickup truck near the lot, Wyly approached them. Wyly launched into a profanity-laced diatribe, threatening to "ruin their lives" and do everything he could to make them miserable and prevent them from developing their lot. During the incident, Wyly reached his finger inside the Smiths' pickup and pointed at Hanna. This confrontation lasted at most five minutes, after which Eron drove away. The Smiths did not describe any further confrontations between themselves and Wyly.
The Smiths felt threatened by Wyly's words and behavior. Hanna believed that Wyly's extreme anger made him unpredictable and potentially dangerous. She testified that the episode affected her sleep, and she was unable to live her life normally for some period. Eron was prescribed anxiety medication after this incident. The Smiths had dreamed about building in the Galveston area for quite some time, but they abandoned plans to build on their lot because Wyly planned to build his own house nearby.
The Smiths' lot apparently remained vacant for the next three years. During that time, concrete, paint cans, excavated dirt, and other "construction trash" appeared on the lot. According to the Smiths, Wyly told them that his subcontractors dumped the debris there. Wyly did not deny that his subcontractors may have been responsible for the dirt and some damage to the Smiths' lot. Further, Wyly acknowledged that his swimming pool subcontractor dumped "lots" of excavated dirt on the Smiths' property at his direction. In 2017, the Smiths paid $11,500 to have the trash and debris removed and to have their lot leveled.
Wyly Development sued the Smiths for breach of contract and fraud because they declined to hire the company to build their house. The Smiths filed an answer and counterclaims and named Wyly as a third-party defendant. Defensively, the Smiths asserted that Wyly Development's breach-of-contract claimed failed under the statute of frauds. Additionally, the Smiths asserted affirmative claims for trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress against both Wyly Development and Wyly. The breach-of-contract claim proceeded to a bench trial, which resulted in a take-nothing judgment against Wyly Development. The trial court severed all other claims by agreement. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment against Wyly Development on its breach-of-contract claim. See Bill Wyly Dev., Inc. v. Smith, No. 01-16-00296-CV, 2017 WL 3483225, at *1 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 15, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
In the meantime, the Smiths' trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found that appellants trespassed on the Smiths' property and awarded $11,500 in damages. The jury further found that appellants intentionally inflicted emotional distress. For that claim, the jury awarded the Smiths $20,000 for past mental anguish and $1,000 for future mental anguish. Finally, the jury found by clear and convincing evidence that both the trespass and intentional infliction claims were committed with malice, though the jury was not asked to award exemplary damages.
Appellants filed a motion to disregard the jury's intentional infliction of emotional distress findings, arguing among other things that Wyly's conduct in confronting the Smiths was not sufficiently extreme and outrageous to justify recovery. No written ruling denying the motion appears in our record, but the court later signed a final judgment incorporating the jury's findings and awarding the Smiths $32,500 in damages, plus pre- and post-judgment interest.[1] Appellants also filed a motion for new trial, re-asserting a no-evidence challenge to the intentional infliction of emotional distress findings and further contending that the jury's damage award for the trespass claim was not supported by factually sufficient evidence. This motion was overruled by operation of law. Tex.R.Civ.P. 329b(c).
Appellants timely appealed.[2]
In their first issue, appellants contend that the trial court erred by denying their motion for directed verdict on the Smiths' intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because there is no legally sufficient evidence that Wyly's conduct was extreme and outrageous.[3]
A. Legal Sufficiency Standard of Review
In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the proof in the light most favorable to the finding crediting evidence in its favor if a reasonable fact finder could and disregarding contrary evidence unless a reasonable fact finder could not. See City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). The proof is legally insufficient if: there is no proof of a vital fact; rules of law or evidence bar the court from giving any weight to the only proof of a vital fact; the proof supporting a vital fact is no more than a scintilla of evidence; or the proof conclusively shows the opposite of a vital fact to be true. See Gharda USA, Inc. v. Control Sols., Inc., 464 S.W.3d 338, 347 (Tex. 2015).
B. Applicable Law
To prevail on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Smiths had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) Wyly acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) his conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) his actions caused the Smiths emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe. Kroger Tex. Ltd. P'ship v. Suberu, 216 S.W.3d 788, 796 (Tex. 2006) (); Dworschak v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., 352 S.W.3d 191, 197 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.). Appellants challenge the evidence supporting the second and fourth elements. We address only the second element because we conclude appellants' argument on that element is dispositive. Tex.R.App.P. 47.1.
To meet the second element, a defendant's conduct must be "'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'" Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Tex. 1993) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965)). "Meritorious claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress are relatively rare precisely because most human conduct, even that which causes injury to others, cannot be fairly characterized as extreme and outrageous." Suberu, 216 S.W.3d at 796 (citing Creditwatch, Inc. v. Jackson, 157 S.W.3d 814, 815 n.1 (Tex. 2005)). Recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress must typically be based on circumstances that border on "serious criminal acts." Creditwatch, Inc., 157 S.W.3d at 818. Generally, insensitive or rude behavior does not constitute extreme or outrageous conduct. GTE Sw., Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605, 611-12 (Tex. 1999). Likewise, liability does not arise from mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. Id. at 612.
It is for the court to decide in the first instance whether a defendant's conduct...
To continue reading
Request your trial