Orozco v. Sander

• Decision Date: 22 January 1992
• Docket Number: No. D-1603,D-1603
• Parties: Maria G. OROZCO, Petitioner, v. Timothy W. SANDER, Respondent.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 555

824 S.W.2d 555

Maria G. OROZCO, Petitioner, v. Timothy W. SANDER, Respondent.

No. D-1603.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 22, 1992.

Rehearing Overruled April 1, 1992.

Earle Cobb, Jr., San Antonio, for petitioner.

John Vance, San Antonio, for respondent.

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

PER CURIAM.

At issue in this case is whether there is any evidence that Timothy Sander arranged the pretended sale of Maria Orozco's homestead, as the jury found, and thus created an unconstitutional second lien on it. A majority of this court holds that there is.

Orozco sued Timothy Sander, Armando Villanueva, Ticor Title Insurance Company, and the original lien holder, Fireman's Fund Mortgage Corporation, alleging that they induced her to execute an unlawful deed on her homestead in violation of Article 16, Section 50 of the Texas Constitution. Before trial, Orozco amended her pleadings and eliminated all of the defendants except Sander. At trial, the jury found that Sander and his agent, Villanueva, arranged the pretended sale of Orozco's homestead for the purpose of loaning money to Orozco secured by an unconstitutional second lien on her homestead. The jury awarded Orozco $50,000 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in exemplary damages. The trial court rendered judgment on jury's findings. The court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment for Sander based upon his no evidence points of error.

In reviewing no evidence points, this court considers only the evidence and inferences that tend to support the finding and disregards all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc., 786 S.W.2d 670 (Tex.1990). If there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the finding, the no evidence challenge must fail. Stafford v. Stafford, 726 S.W.2d 14, 16 (Tex.1987). There is some evidence when the proof furnishes a reasonable basis for reasonable minds to reach differing conclusions as to the existence of the crucial fact. Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex.1983).

In this case, there was some evidence to support the jury's verdict that this was a pretended sale which was carried out by Sander and his agent, Villanueva. Villanueva and Sander ¹ were in the business of arranging pretended sales on homesteads for profit. See Villanueva v. State, 768 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1989, writ ref'd). ² The record reflected that Sander and Villanueva carried out the pretended sale in the following manner: (1) Sander established the criteria for the sale and provided the forms for the transaction; (2) Villanueva obtained the money for the sale from Sander; (3) Orozco deeded her homestead to Villanueva in exchange for Villanueva executing a purchase money note in the original principal of $25,000, a deed of trust to secure the new note and another deed of trust to secure the assumption of the original indebtedness; (4) Villanueva leased Orozco's home back to her for the amount of money that she owed on the loans, but she had to pay the rent to Sander, instead of Villanueva; (5) in four to six years, when Orozco repaid Sander, Villanueva would reconvey the homestead to Orozco; (6) at closing, Sander purchased the $25,000 note from Orozco for $15,250; (7) from the proceeds of the sale, Orozco gave Villanueva $5,000 to pay off the original note; however, Villanueva kept the money for himself instead of repaying the original indebtedness; (8) shortly after closing, Villanueva defaulted on the new note and...