Schewe v. Bentsen

Decision Date06 April 1970
Docket NumberNo. 27338.,27338.
Citation424 F.2d 60
PartiesKarl H. SCHEWE and Louise H. Schewe, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Elmer C. BENTSEN and Tip-O-Tex Realty Co., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

H. H. Rankin, Jr., Rankin, Kern, Martinez & Van Wie, McAllen, Tex., for appellants.

Morris Atlas, Gary Gurwitz, Atlas, Hall, Schwarz, Mills, Gurwitz & Bland, McAllen, Tex., for appellees.

Before GEWIN, THORNBERRY and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge:

This is a diversity action in which appellant Schewe seeks to recover the amount he was required to pay on a mortgage on property he had already sold. The only question for our consideration is whether Schewe may introduce testimony to vary the terms of the deed by which the property was conveyed. The trial court held that he could not, and accordingly directed a verdict for appellee. We affirm.

Appellant Karl H. Schewe contracted to trade a motel he owned to appellee Tip-O-Tex Realty Company in exchange or certain agricultural property. The motel was encumbered with a mortgage in favor of a Texas insurance company, upon which Schewe was personally liable. In a memorandum sale contract, the parties stated their agreement and dealt with the mortgage by reciting that the motel was "subject to an indebtedness not to exceed $125,000.00." Thereafter, Schewe executed a deed conveying the motel to Tip-O-Tex, "for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar and Other Valuable Consideration," with the deed providing that "Grantees herein take this subject to a Note and Deed of Trust in favor of the Texas insurance company."

The motel was subsequently sold twice. Neither purchaser complied with the terms of the mortgage, and ultimately the Texas insurance company foreclosed. Schewe was left with a $25,000 deficiency judgment upon which he was personally liable. In this action, he seeks to show that Tip-O-Tex assumed the mortgage under the terms of the conveyance, so that he can recover over against Tip-O-Tex. If on the other hand the conveyance was subject to the mortgage, as the contract and deed both indicate, Tip-O-Tex is not liable and Schewe has no recourse. At trial, the court allowed Schewe to testify that the real agreement between the parties made Tip-O-Tex liable on the mortgage notwithstanding the language actually used, but the court subsequently decided that acceptance of this testimony would violate the parol evidence rule. Consequently, the court instructed the jury as a matter of law that the conveyance was merely subject to the mortgage and that Tip-O-Tex was not liable.

Before reaching the merits of the conveyancing language, we confront a choice-of-laws problem. This suit involves parties who are residents of Illinois and Texas, the realty conveyed is located in Arkansas, and the deed was delivered in Missouri. The parties presented the case to the trial court on the basis of Texas conveyancing law, the trial court decided it on that basis, and the parties originally briefed the issues on that basis in this Court. Under the Erie doctrine, however, this Court must apply...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Cage v. GDH Int'l, Inc. (In re Great Gulfcan Energy Tex., Inc.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 8 Marzo 2013
    ...Law Does Not Recognize Constructive Trusts Generally, “the law of the place where the realty is located controls,” Schewe v. Bentsen, 424 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir.1970). As both the Boat and the Real Property are located in Louisiana, the Court must therefore consider whether a constructive tru......
  • Mueller v. Hubbard Milling Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 2 Mayo 1978
    ...are determined by the local law of the state selected by application of the rules of §§ 187-188." Id. § 140. Accord: Shewe v. Bentsen,424 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir. 1970); Merchants Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Professional Men's Assn., 409 F.2d 600, 602-03 (5th Cir. 1969); Kirtley v. Abrams, 299 F......
  • Hennigan v. Chargers Football Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 27 Julio 1970
    ...therefore apply Texas law. See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941); Schewe v. Bentsen, 5 Cir., 1970, 424 F.2d 60. 2 The Chargers thereafter filed a third-party action against Houston Oilers, Inc., asking indemnity from the Oilers for al......
  • Seguros Del Estado S.A. v. Scientific Games Inc., 99-14166
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 20 Agosto 2001
    ...144 F.3d 1384, 1388-89 (11th Cir. 1998); Conway v. Chem. Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 540 F.2d 837, 839 (5th Cir. 1976); Schewe v. Bentsen, 424 F.2d 60, 62 (5th Cir. 1970). This Court has not been advised of any contrary legal doctrine in Colombia which would apply in this 17. In any case, we n......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT