Pace v. State
| Decision Date | 11 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. C-1743,C-1743 |
| Citation | 650 S.W.2d 64 |
| Parties | W. Raymond PACE, J. Michael Reed and Bruce Carr, Jr., Petitioners, v. The STATE of Texas, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Provost, Umphrey & McPherson, Jon B. Burmeister, Port Arthur, for petitioner.
Jim Mattox, Atty. Gen., Roxanne Caperton and George Warner, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, for respondent.
This is a suit for payment from the Real Estate Recovery Fund brought by W. Raymond Pace, J. Michael Reed and Bruce Carr, Jr. (Pace). The three individuals recovered judgments from Frank Manchac, a realtor, for misrepresentations made to each of them during their individual purchases of real property in October and November of 1975. Their actual damages of $6,000, $2,000 and $5,000 respectively were trebled pursuant to the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. 1 Upon motion to the trial court for an order of recovery from the Real Estate Recovery Fund, that court ordered payment of the trebled damages subject to a ceiling of $10,000 per person, the maximum payable from the fund as of the date of the acts of Manchac upon which the instant judgment is based. The court of appeals affirmed the holding of the trial court that $10,000 was the maximum amount recoverable, but reversed the holding of the trial court that treble damages were recoverable from the fund. 640 S.W.2d 432. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
The Real Estate Recovery Fund was established as part of the Real Estate Licensing Act 2 (the Act) to become effective May 19, 1975. The maximum recovery by any one individual was $10,000. By amendment effective September 1, 1979, the maximum amount recoverable was raised to $20,000. The acts of Manchac giving rise to this suit were committed in 1975. The final judgment against Manchac was rendered subsequent to September 1, 1979.
The issues presented are: (1) whether trebled damages under the DTPA are payable from the fund; and (2) what is the maximum allowable recovery from the fund under the facts before us.
We first address the question of whether treble damages under the DTPA are payable from the fund. Section 8, Part 1(a) of the Act provides:
... The fund shall be used in the manner provided in this section for reimbursing aggrieved persons who suffer monetary damages by reason of certain acts ....
Black's Law Dictionary defines "reimburse" as "to pay back, to make restoration, to pay that expended." Black's Law Dictionary 1157 (5th Ed.1979). Thus, the Act provides that the fund is to be used to pay back the monetary damages suffered by the victims of an unscrupulous real estate agent or broker. As conceded by the attorney for Pace at oral argument, treble damages under the DTPA are punitive damages. Punitive damages are not to restore one to his position before the act giving rise to the damages, rather they are to punish the wrongdoer and are an example to others. Therefore the Legislature could not have intended that treble damages be paid from the fund or they would not have used the words "... reimbursing aggrieved persons who suffer monetary damages ...."
Art. 6573a, § 8, Part 3, states in pertinent part:
(a) No action for a judgment which subsequently results in an order for collection from the real estate recovery fund shall be started later than two years from the accrual of the cause of action. When an aggrieved person commences action for a judgment ....
(b) When an aggrieved person recovers a valid judgment ... on the grounds described in Part 1(a) of this section that occurred on or after the effective date of this Act, the aggrieved person may, after final judgment has been entered ... file a verified claim in the court in which the judgment was entered and, on 20 days' written notice to the commission, may apply to the court for an order directing payment out of the real estate recovery fund of the amount unpaid on the judgment, subject to the limitations stated in Part 8 of this section.
Pace relies on the use of the word "judgment" in the above quoted section to support the contention that the entire amount of the judgment, including treble damages, should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hofer v. Lavender
...as recently as last year, we have stated that another of the purposes of such damages is to serve as an example to others. Pace v. State, 650 S.W.2d 64, 65 (Tex.1983). We said the same thing in Sheffield Division, Armco Steel Corp. v. Jones, 376 S.W.2d 825, 831 (Tex.1964). An earlier suprem......
-
Bank One, Texas, N.A. v. Taylor
...and foreseeable consequences of MBank's actions.16 Treble damages under the DTPA are punitive in nature under Texas law. Pace v. State, 650 S.W.2d 64, 65 (Tex.1983).17 A remarkably different situation would have been presented had the FDIC filed its motions after the judgment had become fin......
-
Fairfield Ins. v. Stephens Martin Paving
...as recently as last year, we have stated that another of the purposes of such damages is to serve as an example to others. Pace v. State, 650 S.W.2d 64, 65 (Tex. 1983). We said the same thing in Sheffield Division, Armco Steel Corp. v. Jones, 376 S.W.2d 825, 831 (Tex. 1964). An earlier supr......
-
Ppg Industries v. Jmb/Houston Centers
...dissenting colleagues would also find DTPA damages remedial, but overlook the fact that twenty years ago we held exactly the opposite. In Pace v. State, we held a DTPA treble-damage award could not be recovered from the Real Estate Recovery Fund (a fund set up for "reimbursing aggrieved per......
-
Appendix - Desk Book
...of the defendant’s acts were either found to be knowing misrepresen ta tions or intertwined with the knowing misconduct. Pace v. State, 650 S.W.2d 64 (Tex. 1983). In this case, the Court held that treble damages are not payable from the Real Estate Recovery Fund, Tex. rev. Civ. sTaT. Articl......