Farmers and Merchants State Bank of Krum v. Ferguson
| Decision Date | 20 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. B-9857,B-9857 |
| Citation | 617 S.W.2d 918 |
| Parties | 31 UCC Rep.Serv. 198 FARMERS AND MERCHANTS STATE BANK OF KRUM, Petitioner, v. Earnest FERGUSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Royce Coleman, Denton, Kenneth C. Raney, Jr. (On appeal only), Houston, for petitioner.
Kelsey, Wood, Gregory & Banks, R. William Wood, Ronald L. Phillips and Richard Kelsey, Denton, for respondent.
Earnest Ferguson brought this action against the Farmers and Merchants State Bank of Krum for the wrongful dishonor of checks. The suit was brought under both the Business and Commerce Code, section 4.402, 1 and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, hereinafter called DTPA. 2
Our holdings are that recovery cannot be had under the DTPA as it was written when these facts arose. The plaintiff does recover, however, under the provisions of the Business and Commerce Code, section 4.402.
With regard to DTPA, our holding is that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, Ferguson, to prove that he was a "consumer." That, in turn, depends on proof that the bank account in question was not for business or commercial use. Since Ferguson did not establish this, he is not a "consumer." Greene v. Bearden Enterprises, Inc., 598 S.W.2d 649 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1980, writ ref'd n. r. e.).
Trial was to a jury which found for Ferguson. The trial court disregarded the jury's findings on mental anguish and rendered judgment for Ferguson for treble the remaining damages plus attorney's fees under the DTPA.
The court of civil appeals reformed the judgment of the trial court by adding trebled damages for mental anguish. 605 S.W.2d 320. We reform the judgment of the court of civil appeals and, as reformed, affirm.
Earnest Ferguson, a young pharmacist, obtained several loans from 1974 to 1976 from the Farmers and Merchants State Bank of Krum, Texas, to open and operate a drug store in Krum. The loans were secured by the inventory and fixtures in Ferguson's store, City Drug. Ferguson had two checking accounts at the Bank. One was in the name of City Drug, a sole proprietorship, and the other was his personal or household account. Ferguson paid himself a salary, based in part on his needs, by writing a draft on the City Drug account and depositing the money in his personal account.
City Drug was not as profitable as Ferguson desired. In March 1977, he formed a partnership with another pharmacist; and they opened a new store in Lake Dallas. Ferguson informed the Bank of his plans. He originally planned to keep the store in Krum open by the use of part-time employees while he was at the store in Lake Dallas. He decided to close City Drug in Krum in April of 1977. It was closed on May 1, 1977.
Not all of the inventory and fixtures of City Drug were needed in the Lake Dallas store. Some of the inventory was sold to a third party and some was moved to Lake Dallas. The move was on the basis of need in Lake Dallas, or when Ferguson had time.
The Bank knew of Ferguson's plans to sell part of the inventory and move the rest. It gave him permission to do so. The Bank asked Ferguson to supply it with a listing of the inventory which was moved.
Without notice to Ferguson, the Bank froze the funds in the City Drug account on about May 4. The inventory and the move were not completed at the time that the account was frozen, although the City Drug Store was closed.
On May 4, 1977, Ferguson, who did not know of the Bank's freeze, made a deposit of $4,852.45 to the City Drug account. The funds were received from the bulk sale of drugs.
After May 4, Ferguson wrote several checks. Only a few checks written by Ferguson on the City Drug's account were honored by the Bank after May 4. One of these was a salary withdrawal of $500.00 made by Ferguson while Ferguson was in the Bank. Bank balance sheets in the record indicate that there were other checks which were dishonored during the period after May 4. The Bank also withdrew $200.00 to apply towards loan repayments on May 20 and June 3.
The total balance in the account at all times after May 4, 1977, and until June 6, exceeded $7,000.00; i. e., there were always sufficient funds on deposit to pay all checks drawn by Ferguson. On June 6, 1977, Ferguson paid the balance of the City Drug loans. Because the account had been frozen, Ferguson could not get a loan from another bank in Lake Cities. He paid off the loans with money borrowed from his father.
None of the checks which were dishonored were for more than the balance in the account. The Bank had not dishonored City Drug's checks even when the account was overdrawn in the past, because of an agreement between Ferguson and the Bank.
Ferguson's case, therefore, is that the Bank led him to believe that his City Drug account was active and well while it was in fact frozen. The Bank, while the account was frozen, accepted his deposits and even allowed him to withdraw some funds from the "frozen" account.
Ferguson tried this case as both a suit for wrongful dishonor and for recovery under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. At the time that this case arose, "consumer" was defined in section 17.45(4) of the DTPA as "an individual, partnership or corporation who seeks or acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services." "Services" was defined in section 17.45(2) as "work, labor, or service purchased or leased for use for other than commercial or business use, including services furnished in connection with the sale or repair of goods." The 1977 amendments deleted the phrase, "for other than commercial or business use."
The plaintiff has the burden of proof on all elements of his cause of action under the DTPA. This includes proof that he was a consumer. In Greene v. Bearden Enterprises, 598 S.W.2d 649 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1980, writ ref'd n. r. e.), the court held that because the plaintiffs did not distinguish between services rendered for personal use and those rendered for business use, they did not adequately carry the burden on showing that they were consumers.
In this case, no issue was submitted to the jury inquiring whether the banking services rendered were for business or personal use. Since the burden was on the plaintiff, the Court of Civil Appeals incorrectly placed the burden on the defendant Bank to show that the services were not for personal use.
The Bank argues that there is no evidence that the services rendered were for personal use. The account was carried in the name of City Drug. All of the dishonored checks offered into evidence were for business purposes. The honored checks offered into evidence were likewise for business purposes. Ferguson kept a personal account at the Bank independent of the City Drug account. Ferguson borrowed $2,000.00 for living expenses prior to the opening of the store. There is no evidence whether this $2,000.00 was deposited into Ferguson's personal account or the City Drug account. All of the evidence relating to loss of credit concerned business-related credit either with drug companies or with another bank in Lake Cities.
Ferguson argues that because he was the sole proprietor of City Drug, the funds were his personal property, and the banking services rendered were for personal and not business use. We disagree. Ferguson kept at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Scott
...intentional tort, gross negligence, willful and wanton disregard, or accompanying physical injury." Farmers and Merchants States Bank of Krum v. Ferguson, 617 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex.1981). "The term `mental anguish' implies a relatively high degree of mental pain and distress. It is more than......
-
Bank One, Texas, N.A. v. Taylor
...of the DTPA. Farmers & Merchants State Bank of Krum v. Ferguson, 605 S.W.2d 320, 324 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1980), modified, 617 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.1981). The FDIC does not dispute the applicability of the DTPA to this transaction.13 Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.50(a)(1).14 703 F.2d 197 (5......
-
Valdez v. Church's Fried Chicken, Inc.
...such that they amount to wanton intentional acts without just cause are malicious under law. See, e.g., Farmers and Merchants State Bank v. Ferguson, 617 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex. 1981); Lusk v. Onstott, 178 S.W.2d 549, 554 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1944, no writ). Where a tort is committed intent......
-
Payton v. Abbott Labs
...Chisum v. Behrens, 283 N.W.2d 235 (S.D.1979); Trent v. Barrows, 55 Tenn.App. 182, 397 S.W.2d 409 (1965); Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. Ferguson, 617 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.1981) (dicta); Hughes v. Moore, 214 Va. 27, 197 S.E.2d 214 (1973); Vaillancourt v. Medical Center Hosp. of Vt., Inc., 139 ......
-
Appendix - Desk Book
...or services furnished by the defendant to be a con sumer as defined in the DTPA. Id . at 541. Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. Ferguson, 617 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. 1981). This case involved deceptive trade prac tices commit ted in connection with the wrong ful dishonor of the plaintiff’s checks ......
-
Table of Cases
...(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] modified on other grounds, 711 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. 1986), §4.01 Farmers & Merchants State Bank v. Ferguson , 617 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. 1981), §§1.02.4.1, 6.05 Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Coleman, 795 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1990), §15.04 Federal Land Bank Ass’n v. Sloane ......
-
Initial Client Contacts (Plaintiff)
...The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that he or she qualifies as a consumer. Farmers and Merchants State Bank v. Ferguson , 617 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. 1981). Texas courts of appeals have uniformly held that consumer status is a question of law for the court to decide from the evidence......
-
Defendant's Pleadings
...pleading and proving consumer status. Doe v. Boys Club , 907 S.W.2d 472, 478 (Tex. 1995); Farmers and Merchants State Bank v. Ferguson , 617 S.W.2d 918, 920 (Tex. 1981). §6.06 Affirmative Defenses: DTPA As a general rule, common law defenses do not apply in DTPA litigation. See §2.02 supra ......