Trenholm v. Ratcliff, 21049
| Decision Date | 21 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 21049,21049 |
| Citation | 636 S.W.2d 718 |
| Parties | George A. TRENHOLM, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Raymond F. RATCLIFF, Jr., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
John M. Gillis, Dallas, for appellants.
Jim K. Choate, Brice & Barron, Dallas, for appellees.
Before AKIN, VANCE and WHITHAM, JJ.
This is an appeal from the second trial of this case. Following the first trial, the court of appeals reversed and remanded so as to allow appellants (Trenholm) to pursue their common law action for fraud and deceit against appellees (Ratcliff) in accordance with the opinion. Ratcliff v. Trenholm, 596 S.W.2d 645 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) At issue, so far as our disposition of the present appeal is concerned, is whether homebuilder Trenholm relied on a representation by developer Ratcliff that a mobile home park near or adjacent to a residential development of custom homes would be moved. After the jury returned answers to special issues, both parties filed motions for judgment on the verdict and Ratcliff in the alternative filed motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. Without specifying the grounds, the trial court granted one of Ratcliff's motions and entered judgment that Trenholm take nothing. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.
Greenhollow is a residential development of custom homes in West Plano, Collin County, Texas, owned, improved, developed and subdivided for sale of lots to other parties by Richardson Savings and Loan Association. Raymond F. Ratcliff, Jr. was president of Ramahal Development Corporation which had the duty under a joint venture arrangement with Richardson Savings and Loan Association to develop Greenhollow and market those lots to builders with the specific charge to "plan, design and implement sales efforts and procedures...." Oxford Building Systems Inc. is a corporation engaged in the building of custom homes owned by brothers George and Robert Trenholm at the time of the accrual of this cause of action, but wholly owned by George Trenholm at the time of trial. Along with other builders, the Trenholms attended a "draw" breakfast meeting in November, 1975. At that meeting Ratcliff presented himself and the Greenhollow development and invited the attending builders to purchase lots in Greenhollow offering a $500.00 deduction for any lot purchased at that meeting. During the course of the presentation Ratcliff presented a mobile home park located near or adjacent to Greenhollow as a future shopping area. At the conclusion of his planned presentation, Ratcliff invited questions from the builders. George Trenholm asked:
"Ray, you talked in, around and about this mobile home park through your presentation, and you definitely left me with the impression that it's going to be moved, but before I buy any lots I specifically want to know what disposition is going to be made on that property."
Ratcliff answered:
The mobile home park was not owned by Ratcliff, by Ramahal Development Corporation or by Richardson Savings and Loan Association, but rather by a third party not a party to this action and without any relationship to any party to this action. The mobile home park was not moved by the time houses were completed for sale, and remained in existence, even through trial.
Trenholm built eighteen houses in the Greenhollow Development owned by Richardson Savings and Loan. Six houses were built for its own account and twelve in a joint venture with Richardson Savings and Loan. All were speculative, that is, built without a contract of sale to a purchaser. Ratcliff had no ownership in the development but was to share in the profits with Richardson Savings and Loan, the same as Trenholm was to share in the profits with Richardson Savings and Loan on the twelve houses that he later built in a joint venture with Richardson Savings and Loan. The November, 1975, sales meeting was in the nature of a lot drawing for builders. All of the builders present were previous borrowers from, and doing business with, Richardson Savings and Loan. In addition to the discussion of the mobile home park at the November, 1975, meeting there were statements made by Ratcliff about the future construction of a bridge and of a new elementary school in the area. The two representations about the bridge and school were also alleged to be tainted with fraud, but the jury findings eliminated them from consideration in the present case. Trenholm did not sign up for any lots or purchase any lots during this meeting. Later, however, Trenholm made a deal with Richardson Savings and Loan for six lots and began the construction of his six "spec" houses thereon. Trenholm purchased one of the lots in January 1976, and five more in February, 1976. Shortly thereafter, in April, Richardson Savings and Loan and Trenholm entered into their joint venture arrangement on additional homes to be built in the development. Richardson Savings and Loan would furnish the money and Trenholm would build and sell the houses. The profits or losses would be split 50/50 between them. Twelve joint venture houses were built. On June 23, 1976, a meeting was held by Ratcliff for discussion about the slow sales. Trenholm, along with representatives of Richardson Savings and Loan and some other builders were present. Trenholm brought up the question of the continued presence of the mobile home park. He was told that it would eventually be sold but for the present there was nothing that could be done about it. Everyone, including Trenholm, agreed on a plan of action, i.e., get some advertising, hold a grand opening, and generate some traffic and sales. This all came to pass. Trenholm sold all of the eighteen houses he completed, six of his own and the twelve joint venture houses. Trenholm settled with Richardson Savings and Loan for $50,000, as his share of the joint venture losses on the twelve joint venture houses.
Among others, the court submitted the following special issue:
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that prior to the purchase of Greenhollow lots by Plaintiff Oxford (Trenholm), Raymond...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
South Hampton Co. v. Stinnes Corp.
...S.W.2d 169, 172 (Tex.1980); Ratcliff v. Trenholm, 596 S.W.2d 645, 648-49 (Tex.Civ.App.1980), writ ref. n.r.e., aff'd after remand, 636 S.W.2d 718 (1982), reversed on other grounds, 646 S.W.2d 927 (Tex.1983).31 See Ratcliff v. Trenholm, supra at 649; Trial v. McCoy, supra at 201, aff'd after......
-
Trenholm v. Ratcliff
...affirmed the judgment, holding the evidence established, as a matter of law, that Trenholm did not rely on Ratcliff's representations. 636 S.W.2d 718. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment for plaintiff George and Robert Trenholm were the principal stockholders......
-
Bank of Texas, N.A. v. Gaubert
...specific buyer. See Tex. Wood Mill Cabinets, Inc. v. Butter, 117 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2003, no pet.); Trenholm v. Ratcliff, 636 S.W.2d 718, 719 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1982), rev'd, 646 S.W.2d 927 (Tex. 3. See Gaines v. Kelly, 235 S.W.3d 179, 183 (Tex.2007); Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc.......
-
Reed v. Israel Nat. Oil Co., Ltd.
...of other goods, citing Ratcliff v. Trenholm 596 S.W.2d 645 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1980 on appeal after remand, 636 S.W.2d 718 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1982, writ granted), rev'd on other grounds, 646 S.W.2d 927 (Tex.1983). We disagree. While Ratcliff states that "the purchase of goods ... for use in......