Meyers v. Ford Motor Credit Co.

• Decision Date: 10 June 1981
• Docket Number: No. A2644,A2644
• Citation: 619 S.W.2d 572
• Parties: Josephine MEYERS, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO., et al., Appellees. (14th Dist.)
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 572

619 S.W.2d 572

Josephine MEYERS, Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO., et al., Appellees.

No. A2644.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

June 10, 1981.

Carnegie H. Mims, Jr., Jefferson, Sherman & Mims, Houston, for appellant.

John A. Cavin, Ross, Banks, May, Cron & Cavin, Houston, for appellees.

Before J. CURTISS BROWN, C. J., and COULSON and JUNELL, JJ.

JUNELL, Justice.

Josephine Meyers, Plaintiff, appeals from an adverse judgment rendered in a judge-tried case on motion of defendants at close of the plaintiff's case. We reverse and remand.

The plaintiff had purchased an automobile and financed it through Ford Motor Credit Co., which employed Jim Shriner, d/b/a Professional Finance Adjustors, to repossess the automobile for default on the note payments. In her petition plaintiff alleged that Shriner, under Ford's direction, entered on her property at 2:00 a. m. and damaged and destroyed her garage while removing the car; that Shriner had no right to be there; that his entry constituted a trespass; that plaintiff's garage was damaged in the amount of at least $950; that the trespass was malicious and willful and $20,000 in exemplary damages should be awarded; that the manner of repossession of the car constituted a breach of the peace which made the repossession unauthorized, unlawful and an invasion of privacy and thus in violation of § 9.503 of the Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann., and for which plaintiff should be compensated in the amount of at least $20,000 in damages.

A defendant's motion for judgment at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case in a judge-tried case is equivalent to a motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case in a jury trial. Rhinetubes, Inc. v. Norddeutscher Lloyd, 335 S.W.2d 269 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1960, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Burkhardt v. Harris, 200 S.W.2d 445 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1947, no writ); 4 R. McDonald, Texas Civil Practice § 16.04 (rev.1971). The correctness of the court's ruling on such motions is tested by the same rules. The court must presume to be true the evidence of the opposite party, who is entitled to the most favorable construction that such evidence will properly bear and to the benefit of all reasonable inferences arising therefrom. All contradictory or countervailing evidence is disregarded. Evans v. Houston Printing Corporation, 217 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1948, writ ref'd n. r. e.).

The specific ground of defendant's motion for judgment was that the plaintiff had not provided any proof of damages. We assume this to be a claim that there was no evidence upon which the trial court could make an award of any amount of money as damages. It is true that there is no evidence in the record as to the amount of monetary damages to the garage, which plaintiff alleged to be $950. Also, there is no pleading or evidence concerning the value of the automobile which plaintiff alleged was wrongfully repossessed. However, the plaintiff alleged a willful and...