Catalina v. Blasdel, No. D-4160

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Writing for the CourtGAMMAGE
Citation881 S.W.2d 295
PartiesJames W. CATALINA and Sheryl D. Catalina d/b/a Catalina Leasings, Petitioners, v. William J. BLASDEL d/b/a Casey's Cars, Respondent.
Decision Date08 September 1994
Docket NumberNo. D-4160

Page 295

881 S.W.2d 295
James W. CATALINA and Sheryl D. Catalina d/b/a Catalina
Leasings, Petitioners,
v.
William J. BLASDEL d/b/a Casey's Cars, Respondent.
No. D-4160.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Argued Dec. 15, 1993.
Decided June 2, 1994.
Rehearing Overruled Sept. 8, 1994.

Mitchell J. Buchman, Houston, for petitioners.

Marcus E. Faubion, Houston, for respondent.

Page 296

Justice GAMMAGE delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all Justices join.

This is a usury lawsuit. The issue in this case is whether there was some evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding that the agreement involved here was not usurious. William J. Blasdel and James W. Catalina entered into a floor plan agreement whereby Catalina Leasings financed the purchase of used cars for Blasdel's used car lot. Blasdel withdrew from the agreement after four months and subsequently sued Catalina for charging a usurious rate of interest. 1 After a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing. Based on its 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 appeals.

The trial court found--and Blasdel does not challenge the finding--that the written contract contained the complete agreement of the parties. Under the agreement, either Blasdel or Catalina could purchase used cars for Blasdel's inventory and pay for the cars by envelope drafts drawn on Catalina's bank account. Catalina would inspect the titles, pay the draft amounts, and hold the titles until Blasdel sold the vehicles. The agreement required Blasdel, upon sale, to pay Catalina 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 floor plan fees were sixty dollars for vehicles purchased for under five hundred dollars, and ten percent of the purchase price for vehicles costing more than five hundred dollars. The agreement required Blasdel to pay an initial floor plan fee for the first thirty days that a vehicle remained on the lot. If the car remained on the lot for longer than thirty days, Blasdel had to pay a second floor plan fee, due at the end of the second thirty day period.

If a car remained unsold after sixty days, Blasdel had to pay Catalina one-half of the principal amount, plus a third floor plan fee. If a vehicle was sold, lost, or stolen, Blasdel was to pay the principal and any fees not already paid. Repayment of the purchase price was therefore contingent. The agreement did not provide for repayment of the unpaid principal in the event that a car remained on the lot after sixty days. Under the contract, both Catalina and Blasdel could buy cars for the lot, and the business records show that Catalina bought most of the cars for sale on the lot.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
995 practice notes
  • In Re: Jane Doe 2, No. 00-0191
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • March 7, 2000
    ...1997). 24. See Doe 1, 19 S.W.3d at 257 25. See id. 26. TEX. FAM. CODE 33.003(i). 27. See Doe 1, 19 S.W.3d at 253 ; Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex. 1994). 28. Where paraphrasing is sufficient to convey the gist of testimony from the application hearing, we will not quote the t......
  • Mbm Financial v. Woodlands Operating Co., No. 08-0390.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • August 28, 2009
    ...jury verdicts). The same standard of review applies to a trial court's findings following a bench trial. See Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex. 4. 251 S.W.3d 174, 184. 5. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934, 937 (Tex. 1998) ("[T]hat proof of causation is......
  • TYCO Valves & Controls, L.P. v. Colorado, No. 01–10–00113–CV.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 19, 2012
    ...Daniel v. Falcon Interest Realty Corp., 190 S.W.3d 177, 184 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (citing Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex.1994)). In conducting a legal-sufficiency review, we credit favorable evidence if a reasonable fact-finder could and disregard contr......
  • Miranda v. Byles, No. 01–10–01022–CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • November 16, 2012
    ...same standards that we use in reviewing the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting jury findings. Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex.1994). When the appellate record includes the reporter's record, the trial court's factual findings, whether express or implied, a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
983 cases
  • In Re: Jane Doe 2, No. 00-0191
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • March 7, 2000
    ...1997). 24. See Doe 1, 19 S.W.3d at 257 25. See id. 26. TEX. FAM. CODE 33.003(i). 27. See Doe 1, 19 S.W.3d at 253 ; Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex. 1994). 28. Where paraphrasing is sufficient to convey the gist of testimony from the application hearing, we will not quote the t......
  • Mbm Financial v. Woodlands Operating Co., No. 08-0390.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • August 28, 2009
    ...jury verdicts). The same standard of review applies to a trial court's findings following a bench trial. See Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex. 4. 251 S.W.3d 174, 184. 5. See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934, 937 (Tex. 1998) ("[T]hat proof of causati......
  • TYCO Valves & Controls, L.P. v. Colorado, No. 01–10–00113–CV.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 19, 2012
    ...Daniel v. Falcon Interest Realty Corp., 190 S.W.3d 177, 184 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (citing Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex.1994)). In conducting a legal-sufficiency review, we credit favorable evidence if a reasonable fact-finder could and disregard contr......
  • Miranda v. Byles, No. 01–10–01022–CV.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • November 16, 2012
    ...same standards that we use in reviewing the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting jury findings. Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex.1994). When the appellate record includes the reporter's record, the trial court's factual findings, whether express or implied, a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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