Marlow v. Medlin, 5775
Decision Date | 17 November 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 5775,5775 |
Citation | 558 S.W.2d 933 |
Parties | William MARLOW et ux., Appellants, v. Cynthia MEDLIN, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Herbert E. Evans, Austin, for appellants.
J. Terry Weeks, Levbarg, Weeks & Chapman, Austin, for appellee.
This is a common law fraud action for actual and exemplary damages brought by Cynthia Medlin against William Marlow and wife Elli Marlow as partners. The gist of plaintiff's suit was that her landlords were defendants' vendees under a contract of sale of the premises she was renting, and that she was induced by defendants' false representations to pay defendants rent money she was withholding from her landlords as an offset against a debt they owed to her. Defendants answered with a general denial, several special pleas, and a counterclaim for unpaid rent. After a hearing without a jury, judgment was rendered awarding plaintiff actual and exemplary damages, and denying defendants recovery on their counterclaim. Defendants appeal. We affirm the awards of damages on plaintiff's action, but we reform the judgment to allow defendants recovery on their counterclaim.
On July 3, 1973, defendants sold a duplex-type house and lot located in the City of Austin, Texas, to Tom Kosowski and Mike Vogel under a written contract of purchse and sale. The terms of the contract called for a total price of $41,600.00, a down payment of $4,000.00, payment of the balance in monthly installments of $400.00, and execution by defendants of a general warranty deed to the purchasers upon payment of the entire purchase price. The monthly payments were payable to defendants at Silver Lake, Indiana. Although the contract provided that if the purchasers breached its terms defendants would be authorized to terminate the contract and retain all money paid by the purchasers as rental and liquidated damages, nothing was stated in it concerning the parties' rights to rent paid by tenants of the property. However, the language of the whole instrument (which we need not set forth) clearly evidenced an intention that the purchasers should have possession of the premises. On the day the contract of sale was executed, Kosowski and Vogel borrowed $2,700.00 from plaintiff, executed their promissory note to plaintiff for the loan, and used the borrowed money in making the $4,000.00 down payment to defendants. The note from Kosowski and Vogel to plaintiff called for full repayment of the loan by January 1, 1974, with 9% interest.
Within a few days after execution of the contract of sale and the note in July, 1973, plaintiff, who was a student at the University of Texas at Austin, leased the house from Kosowski and Vogel at a rental of $175.00 per month. She also managed the premises in an informal fashion, collected rent from other tenants, and deposited it with her own rent in Kosowski's and Vogel's bank account. Kosowski and Vogel never made any payment of either interest or principal on plaintiff's note, and in August, 1974, plaintiff determined to withhold her rent from them. She did so for the months of September, October, and November, 1974. By this time, Kosowski and Vogel were in default on their payments to defendants under the contract of sale.
Plaintiff testified that defendant William Marlow telephoned her twice in the month of November, 1974. Her account of their conversation is as follows:
Plaintiff's brother resided with her in the leased premises. He testified, He gave this account of Mr. Marlow's attitude and statements:
On December 2nd, after the conversations, plaintiff mailed defendants $476.44, stating in her letter of transmittal that this sum was the rent for the months of September, October, and November, 1974, at the rate of $175.00 per month, less $48.56 paid by her for a water bill which Kosowski and Vogel should have paid.
Mr. Marlow denied that he told plaintiff to pay the rent she was withholding to him.
On December 27, 1974, defendants rescinded the contract of sale, notified Kosowski and Vogel that they had done so, and caused an instrument reflecting those facts to be filed in the deed records of Travis County, Texas.
Plaintiff continued living in the house until March 20, 1975, when she was judicially evicted under a forcible detainer action filed by defendants in the Justice Court of Travis County. During this time she paid only $175.00 for rent. This payment was voluntarily made by her to defendants in January, 1975. She testified that this was a "good-faith gesture" on her part when they were discussing the possibility of her purchase of the property.
The trial court made and filed the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
F. R. Hernandez Const. & Supply Co., Inc. v. National Bank of Commerce of Brownsville
...v. Brooks, 143 Tex. 122, 182 S.W.2d 687 (1944); Bednarz v. State, 142 Tex. 138, 176 S.W.2d 562 (1943); Marlow v. Medlin, 558 S.W.2d 933 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1977, writ ref'd n. r. e.) (malice presumed from finding of material false misrepresentation) ; In Interest of B. J. B and C. E. B, 546 ......
-
Abilene Nat. Bank v. Fina Supply, Inc.
...misrepresentation of a foreign law is present in the instant case; thus, Askew fails to support Fina's position. McGee, supra; Marlow v. Medlin, 558 S.W.2d 933 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1977, no writ); Askew v. Smith, 246 S.W.2d 920 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1952, no writ); Squyres v. Christian, supr......
-
Silver Lion, Inc. v. Dolphin Street, Inc., No. 01-07-00370-CV (Tex. App. 5/20/2010)
...no writ) (defendant who misrepresented that requirement of statute of frauds was satisfied was liable for resulting damages); Marlow v. Medlin, 558 S.W.2d 933, 938 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1977, no writ) (statement as to statute of frauds was actionable because intended and understood as statem......
-
Buckner v. Buckner
...and understood. Safety Casualty Co. v. McGee, 133 Tex. 233, 127 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex.Comm'n App.1939, opinion adopted); Marlow v. Medlin, 558 S.W.2d 933, 938 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1977, no writ). Likewise, there are specific exceptions to the general rule pertaining to misrepresentations in l......