Blasdell v. Catalina, No. A14-92-00823-CV

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtBefore J. CURTISS BROWN; J. CURTISS BROWN
Citation858 S.W.2d 653
PartiesWilliam J. BLASDELL D/B/A Casey's Cars, Appellant, v. James W. CATALINA and Sheryl D. Catalina D/B/A Catalina Leasings, Appellees. (14th Dist.)
Docket NumberNo. A14-92-00823-CV
Decision Date29 July 1993

Page 653

858 S.W.2d 653
William J. BLASDELL D/B/A Casey's Cars, Appellant,
v.
James W. CATALINA and Sheryl D. Catalina D/B/A Catalina
Leasings, Appellees.
No. A14-92-00823-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas,
Houston (14th Dist.).
July 29, 1993.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 26, 1993.

Page 654

Marcus E. Faubion, Houston, for appellant.

Mitchell J. Buchman, Houston, for appellees.

Before J. CURTISS BROWN, C.J., and ELLIS and LEE, JJ.

OPINION ON REHEARING

J. CURTISS BROWN, Chief Justice.

We withdraw our opinion of July 1, 1993, and substitute the following opinion. William Blasdell (the appellant) sued James and Sheryl Catalina (the appellees) for charging a usurious rate of interest on a floor plan agreement used to finance inventory on the appellant's car lot. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the appellees. The appellant raises three points of error. In the first two points, he argues the trial court erred by ruling that the agreement between the parties did not include an absolute obligation to repay principal. In his third point, the appellant argues that even without an absolute obligation to repay principal, the appellees charged and received a usurious rate of interest. We sustain the appellant's third point of error.

Under the agreement, either the appellant or the appellees could purchase cars for the appellant's inventory, and pay for the cars by envelope drafts drawn on the appellees' bank account. After inspecting the titles to the vehicles, the appellees would pay the draft amounts. They would then hold the titles until the appellant sold the cars. Upon sale, the appellant was required to pay the appellees for the amount of the draft, floor plan fees, a ten dollar draft charge, and in some cases, a twenty-five dollar finder's fee. The appellees charged a sixty dollar floor plan fee for vehicles purchased for under five hundred dollars. They charged a floor plan fee equaling ten percent of the purchase price for vehicles costing more than five hundred dollars. The appellant paid an initial floor plan fee for the first thirty day period that a vehicle remained on the lot. This fee was due at the end of the first thirty day period. If the vehicle remained on the lot for more than thirty days, the appellant had to pay a second floor plan fee. This fee was due at the end of the second thirty day period. If a car remained on the lot for more than sixty days, the appellant had to pay off one half of the principal draft amount, as well as a third floor plan fee. Payment of the principal amount, floor plan fees not already paid, draft fees and finder's fees were due upon sale, theft or other loss of each vehicle. The agreement did not specifically provide for repayment of the remaining principal in

Page 655

the event that a car remained on the lot after payment of a third floor plan fee.

The parties conducted business under this agreement for about four months. During this time, the appellees financed thirty-five vehicles for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Lentino v. Cullen Center Bank and Trust, No. 14-94-00175-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • February 29, 1996
    ...Bank v. Tony's Tortilla Factory, 877 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Tex.1994); Holley v. Watts, 629 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex.1982); Blasdell v. Catalina, 858 S.W.2d 653, 655 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 881 Page 746 S.W.2d 295 (Tex.1994). In the present case, neither side di......
  • Catalina v. Blasdel, No. D-4160
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • September 8, 1994
    ...holding that usury does not require an absolute obligation to repay principal, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment. 858 S.W.2d 653. We reverse the judgment of the court of The trial court found--and Blasdel does not challenge the finding--that the written contract conta......
2 cases
  • Lentino v. Cullen Center Bank and Trust, No. 14-94-00175-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • February 29, 1996
    ...Bank v. Tony's Tortilla Factory, 877 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Tex.1994); Holley v. Watts, 629 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex.1982); Blasdell v. Catalina, 858 S.W.2d 653, 655 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 881 Page 746 S.W.2d 295 (Tex.1994). In the present case, neither side di......
  • Catalina v. Blasdel, No. D-4160
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • September 8, 1994
    ...holding that usury does not require an absolute obligation to repay principal, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment. 858 S.W.2d 653. We reverse the judgment of the court of The trial court found--and Blasdel does not challenge the finding--that the written contract conta......

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