Flenniken v. Longview Bank and Trust Co.
| Citation | 26 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 492,661 S.W.2d 705 |
| Decision Date | 06 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. C-1759,C-1759 |
| Parties | James Rodney FLENNIKEN and Betty Flenniken, Petitioners, v. LONGVIEW BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Jerry L. Covington, Clifton L. Holmes, Longview, for petitioners.
Mobley, Green, Harrison & Gardner, William J. Gardner and Joe R. Green, Longview, for respondent.
Mr. and Mrs. James Flenniken instituted this suit against the Longview Bank & Trust Co. seeking damages for wrongful foreclosure and violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.41 et seq. 1 Based on the jury's finding that the Bank engaged in an unconscionable course of action in causing the sale of the Flennikens' property, the trial court rendered judgment that the Flennikens recover $25,974 treble damages, attorney's fees, and court costs. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment in part, holding that the Flennikens were not "consumers" and were not entitled to recover treble damages or attorney's fees under the DTPA. 642 S.W.2d 568. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
On October 28, 1976, the Flennikens and Charles Easterwood entered into a mechanic's and materialman's lien contract, whereby Easterwood agreed to construct a residence on the Flennikens' property. In exchange for Easterwood's services, the Flennikens paid Easterwood $5,010 and executed a $42,500 mechanic's lien note, naming Easterwood as payee. This note was further secured by a deed of trust to the Flennikens' property, in which the Bank's vice-president, J.M. Bell, was named as trustee. On this same date, Easterwood assigned the Flennikens' note and his contract lien to the Bank in return for the Bank's commitment to provide interim construction financing.
Under the terms of the lien contract, Easterwood was to complete the Flennikens' residence by April 28, 1977. Between November 2, 1976, and January 7, 1977, the Bank made four disbursements of construction funds to Easterwood, totalling $32,000. Easterwood, however, later abandoned the contract after completing only 20 percent of the work. On December 6, 1977, after the Flennikens and the Bank failed to agree on what to do with the unfinished house, the Bank foreclosed on the property under the terms of the deed of trust.
The Bank does not challenge the jury's finding that foreclosure was an unconscionable course of action. Instead, the Bank argues that the Flennikens are not "consumers" as that term is defined in section 17.45(4) of the DTPA. We disagree.
It is clear that only a "consumer" has standing to maintain a private cause of action for treble damages and attorney's fees under section 17.50(a) of the DTPA. Knight v. International Harvester Credit Corp., 627 S.W.2d 382, 388 (Tex.1982); Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., 618 S.W.2d 535, 538 (Tex.1981); Riverside National Bank v. Lewis, 603 S.W.2d 169, 173 (Tex.1980). Section 17.45(4) defines a consumer as "an individual ... who seeks or acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services." Under the DTPA, goods include "real property purchased ... for use," Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.45(1), and services include "services furnished in connection with the sale ... of goods." Id. § 17.45(2). Section 17.45(4), however, only describes the class of persons entitled to bring suit under section 17.50; it does not define the class of persons subject to liability under the DTPA. The range of possible defendants is limited only by the exemptions provided in section 17.49. Section 17.50(a)(3), for example, allows a consumer to "maintain an action if he has been adversely affected by ... any unconscionable action or course of action by any person." 2
In the instant case, the court of appeals recognized that the Flennikens were consumers to the extent they sought to acquire a house from Easterwood, as well as his services. The court of appeals, however, treated Easterwood's assignment of their note to the Bank as a separate transaction in which the Flennikens did not seek or acquire any goods or services. According to the court of appeals, the Bank's unconscionable course of action did not occur in connection with the Flennikens' transaction with Easterwood, but in connection with Easterwood's transaction with the Bank. Thus, the court of appeals held that the Flennikens were not consumers as to the Bank because the purchase of the house and Easterwood's services did not form the basis of their complaint. 642 S.W.2d at 570.
This holding erroneously suggests that the Flennikens were required to seek or acquire goods or services from the Bank in order to meet the statutory definition of consumer, a contention we rejected in Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., supra. Privity between the plaintiff and defendant is not a consideration in deciding the plaintiff's status as a consumer under the DTPA. Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., 618 S.W.2d at 541; accord Gupta v. Ritter Homes, Inc., 646 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.1983); Stagner v. Friendswood Development Co., 620 S.W.2d 103 (Tex.1981) (per curiam). A plaintiff establishes his standing as a consumer in terms of his relationship to a transaction, not by a contractual relationship with the defendant. The only requirement is that the goods or services sought or acquired by the consumer form the basis of his complaint. Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., 618 S.W.2d at 539.
Similarly, the fact that the Bank's unconscionable course of action occurred after the Flennikens and Easterwood entered into the contract for the sale of the house does not exempt the Bank from liability under the DTPA. Under section 17.50(a)(3) there is no requirement that the defendant's unconscionable act occur simultaneously with the sale or lease of the goods or services that form the basis of the consumer's complaint. Cf. Leal v. Furniture Barn, Inc., 571 S.W.2d 864, 865 (Tex.1978). If, in the context of a transaction in goods or services, any person engages in an unconscionable course of action which adversely affects a consumer, that person is subject to liability under the DTPA. Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.50(a)(3); see D. Bragg, P. Maxwell & J. Longley, Texas Consumer Litigation 21 (2d ed. 1983).
The court of appeals erred in holding that the basis of the Flennikens' complaint was Easterwood's transaction with the Bank, rather than their transaction with Easterwood. From the Flennikens' perspective, there was only one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Gas Reclamation, Inc. Securities Litigation
...a consumer." La Sara Grain Co. v. First National Bank of Mercedes, 673 S.W.2d 558, 566-67 (Tex. 1984) (citing Flenniken v. Longview Bank and Trust Co., 661 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.1983); Knight v. International Harvester Credit Corp., 627 S.W.2d 382 Thus, the issue here turns on defendants' second ......
-
Williams v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
...§ 17.44(a). To maintain a private cause of action under the DTPA, the plaintiff must be a consumer.10 Flenniken v. Longview Bank & Trust Co., 661 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Tex. 1983); Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc., 618 S.W.2d 535 (Tex.1981); Riverside Nat'l Bank v. Lewis, 603 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. T......
-
Vinson & Elkins v. Moran
...assert consumer status under the DTPA. Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 649 (Tex.1996); Flenniken v. Longview Bank & Trust Co., 661 S.W.2d 705, 707 (Tex.1983). The DTPA is designed to protect consumers from any deceptive trade practice made in connection with the purcha......
-
Roberts v. Am. Bank & Trust Co.
...process procedure, and therefore the procedure must be deemed unconstitutional. Plaintiff also contends that Jones v. First Bank and Trust Co., a recent case decided in this Court that was cited by Defendants, is questionable authority because the opinion did not grapple with the holding of......
-
Appendix - Desk Book
...cy which is neither ‘goods’ nor ‘ser vices’. Therefore they are notconsumers[.]” Id . at 524. Flenniken v. Longview Bank & Trust Co., 661 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1983). The Flennikens entered into a contract with a builder for construction of a residence. The Flennikens executed a mechanic’s lien ......
-
Table of Cases
...Pipe & Steel, Inc. , 739 S.W.2d 622, 624-25 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, writ denied), §1.02.15 Flenniken v. Long view Bank & Trust Co. , 661 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1983), §§1.02.4.1, 1.02.5, 1.02.6, 1.02.7, 1.02.7.1, 1.02.104, 12.02 Flores v. Banner , 932 S.W.2d 500 (Tex. 1996), §8.09 Forbau v. Aetna......
-
Initial Client Contacts (Plaintiff)
...dump truck included financing arrangement with lender assignee of retail installment contract; Flenniken v. Longview Bank & Trust Co. , 661 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1983) (home construction transaction included financing arrangement between builder and lender); Arthur Anderson and Co. v. Perry Equi......
-
Table of Cases
...(Tenn. Ct. App. 2007), 1121 Flemma v. Halliburton Energy Servs., 303 P.3d 814 (N.M. 2013), 1036 Flenniken v. Longview Bank & Trust, 661 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1983), 1128 Fleshman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A . , No. 03:13–CV–02062–HZ, 2014 WL 2772508 (D. Or. June 17, 2014), 181 Flexible Lifeline Sys......