Miller v. Schuman, 6601
| Decision Date | 24 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 6601,6601 |
| Citation | 556 S.W.2d 97 |
| Parties | John Perry MILLER et ux., Appellants, v. Charles L. SCHUMAN, d/b/a Bonanza Mobile Homes Subdivision, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
This suit was filed by the Plaintiffs under the terms of Section 27.01, Tex.Bus. & Comm.Code Ann., to recover their alleged actual and exemplary damages sustained in their purchase of a mobile home lot. The trial Court granted the Defendant's motion for an instructed verdict when the Plaintiffs rested. We affirm.
The Plaintiffs, John Perry Miller and wife, Lola N. Miller, purchased the mobile home lot in November, 1971, from Charles L. Schuman, d/b/a Bonanza Mobile Homes Subdivision. Their trial pleadings alleged that prior to the purchase, the Defendant's agent had falsely represented that the Subdivision had good water; that this representation was false as the water was not potable and was substandard and in violation of the State Health Department's standards for potability; that the Defendant's agent had further falsely represented to them that the Defendant would supply as much water as would be needed to the lot for a standard monthly fee for as long as the Plaintiffs owned the lot; and that the value of the lot as represented was $4,227.00, and actually was virtually worthless due to the poor quality of the water and the secret intention of the Defendant to discontinue the water service. They sued for their actual damages in the amount of $4,227.00 and for their exemplary damages under the Statute not to exceed twice the amount of the actual damages.
The directed verdict presents the no evidence point and the rules for our appellate review are well summarized in Campbell v. Booth, 526 S.W.2d 167 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.). We will accept as true the evidence in the record supporting the Appellant's allegations both of fraud and damages, and will disregard all evidence to the contrary. That case points out that the Courts allow a wide latitude in determining the issue of fraud which can be deducible from artifice and concealment, as well as from affirmative conduct. Even under those prescribed rules, the defects in the evidence in this case are obvious.
The Plaintiffs, on November 1, 1970, went to the mobile home Subdivision to secure a rental lot. The available water came from two wells located on the Subdivision. In inquiring of a rental lot, one of the Defendant's salesmen, a Mr. John Knopp, referred them to a lot which was owned by a Mrs. Ludy. They inquired of Mr. Knopp as to the water, and he told them that the water was good for the two years that he had been there. The Plaintiffs then rented the mobile home lot from Mrs. Ludy for a period of some eleven months. In September, 1971, they ascertained that the lot directly across from theirs was available for sale due to the death of one of the owners. They contacted the widow, but due to the estate problems involved were unable to purchase the lot directly from her. In securing the necessary conveyance, it was necessary for the Defendant to foreclose on the deed of trust securing the note on the lot owned by the decedent and the widow. Thereafter, the Defendant was able to convey the lot to the Plaintiffs. Admittedly, no oral representations regarding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Carpenter
...Southwestern Acceptance Corp., 565 S.W.2d 290, 297-298 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1978, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Miller v. Schuman, 556 S.W.2d 97, 99 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1977, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Collins v. Miller, 443 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1969, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Maddox v. Worsham, ......