SMITH - > 911 S.W.2d 427 Court of Appeals of Texas, San...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
> 911 S.W.2d 427 Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. Donald H. and Pat SMITH, Appellants, v. Ronald Mitchell and Serena LEVINE, Appellees. No. 04-94-00241-CV. Sept. 13, 1995. Rehearing Overruled Oct. 27, 1995. Purchasers of house brought action against sellers under Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The 37th District Court, Bexar County, Robert R. Murray, J., entered judgment upon jury verdict for purchasers, and sellers appealed. Purchasers cross-appealed, alleging error in calculation of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals, Duncan, J., held that: (1) sellers had knowledge of defect of which purchasers were not aware; (2) "as is" clause in earnest money contract did not negate finding of causation; (3) new trial was not required by purchasers' expert's lack of certification; (4) purchasers could recover stigma damages; (5) sellers' claim that purchasers refused to allow inspection of premises was waived; (6) purchasers were entitled to mental anguish damages; (7) evidence supported award of damages for difference in value between how house was represented and how it was received; (8) admission of photographs, if erroneous, was harmless; and (9) award of attorney's fees equal to simple one third of damages was proper. Affirmed. Before RICKHOFF, HARDBERGER and DUNCAN, JJ. DUNCAN, Justice. The Smiths appeal a judgment against them, and in favor of the Levines, under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In eleven points of error, the Smiths argue that they cannot be held liable for representing to the Levines that the house they sold to them was in "excellent" condition when the Smiths knew at the time that an engineer had previously determined that the foundation was defective. We hold that the evidence adequately supports the jury's findings that the Smiths' knowing concealment and affirmative misrepresentation of material facts regarding the condition of the house were a producing cause of damages--including mental anguish damages--to the Levines. We further hold that, in these circumstances, the "as is" clause in the parties' earnest money contract is unenforceable as a matter of law. In a single cross-point, the Levines argue that the trial court's award of attorney's fees is erroneous under this court's opinion in > Benefit Trust Life Ins. Co. v. Littles, 869 S.W.2d 453 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1993), writs granted and judgment set aside without reference to the merits, > 873 S.W.2d 704 (Tex.1994). We decline to extend the reasoning in Benefit Trust to attorney's fees awards under the DTPA. For these reasons, we affirm. FACTS This case arises out of the sale of a house by the Smiths to the Levines in 1991. The house, which was next door to the Smiths' home, was occupied by Mrs. Smith's mother from 1981 until 1988; thereafter, the house was completely remodeled and then leased to Monte Grissom. In 1989, when Grissom was considering purchasing the house, he hired Jim Bradley of American Engineering to do a mechanical and foundation analysis. On January 23, 1989, in his
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2011 for the course EMGT 5130 taught by Professor Jeong during the Fall '11 term at UH Clear Lake.

Page1 / 10

SMITH - > 911 S.W.2d 427 Court of Appeals of Texas, San...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online