law-statutes-of-fraud | statute of frauds and real-estate transactions | statute of frauds in money lending loan
transactions | statute of frauds sales of goods UCC |
STATUTE OF FRAUDS DEFENSE
Alattar v. Ganim (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 18, 2010)(Hedges)
(real estate transaction, statute of frauds applies and was not satisfied, judgment reversed and take-nothing
REVERSED AND RENDERED: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Boyce
14-08-00756-CV Farouck (Frank) Alattar v. John Ganim
Appeal from 400th District Court of Fort Bend County
Trial Court Judge: Clifford J. Vacek
Lee-Way Prince Enterprises, LLC v. Qai Assurance, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 29, 2009)(Bland)
(award of attorney’s fees on contract breach attorney's fees for promissory estoppel claim, breach of contract,
breach of settlement agreement, common-law fraud)
In its appellate briefing, Prince also challenged the enforceability of the cash flow statement under the statute of
frauds, but conceded this issue at oral argument. We note that Prince did not raise the statute of frauds as an
affirmative defense in the trial court, nor was the issue tried by consent. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 67, 92, 94; Double
Ace, Inc. v. Pope, 190 S.W.3d 18, 28 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2005, no pet.); Karbalai v. Solhjou, No. 01-01-00371-
CV, 2003 WL 1848448, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Bland
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Bland and Massengale
01-07-01004-CV Lee-Way Prince Enterprises, LLC v. Qai Assurance, Inc. and Arthur Kwok
Appeal from 269th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. John T. Wooldridge
Harford Fire Ins. Co. v. C. Springs (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 16, 2009)(Radack)
(construction law, bondability, statute of fraud, suretyship, sufficiency of the pleadings)
REVERSE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT AND RENDER JUDGMENT: Opinion by Chief Justice Radack
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Bland
Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. C. Springs 300, Ltd.
Appeal from 270th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Brent Gamble
A contract that creates a suretyship must also comply with the statute of frauds. See TEX. BUS. & COM.CODE
ANN. § 26.01(a), (b)(2) (Vernon 2002 & Supp. 2008). To satisfy the statute of frauds, there must be a written
memorandum which is complete with itself in every material detail and that contains all of the essential elements
of the agreement, so that the contract can be ascertained from the writing without resorting to oral testimony.
Cohen v. McCutchin, 565 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Tex.1978); Frost Nat'l Bank v. Burge, 29 S.W.3d 580, 594 (Tex.App.
-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
"A promise to sign a written contract as surety for the performance of a duty owed to the promisee ... is within
the Statute of Frauds." RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 117 (1981). Similarly, an agreement to
make a future contract is enforceable only if it is specific as to all essential terms. Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist. v.
City of Fort Worth, 22 S.W.3d 831, 846 (Tex.2000). A contract to enter a contract covered by the statute of
frauds must also meet the statute of frauds. See Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, 221 S.W.3d 632, 635 (Tex. 2007)
(holding that statute of frauds bars breach of contract claim based on oral promise to enter contract not
performable in one year).
Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, No. 04-0851 (Tex. Apr. 20, 2007)(per curiam) (employment dispute)
(fraud damages barred where same damages sought in unenforceable oral contract)
Because these benefit-of-the-bargain damages are the same damages Sonnichsen sought to recover under an
unenforceable contract, his fraud claim fails. See Nagle v. Nagle, 633 S.W.2d 796, 801 (Tex. 1982); see also
Formosa Plastics, 960 S.W.2d at 46-47 (noting that except fraudulent inducement, contract duties and damages
may not be pursued in common law tort). The trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Baylor
on Sonnichsen’s fraud claims. . . .
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sustaining Baylor’s special exception on Sonnichsen’s
breach of contract claims and the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Baylor on
Sonnichsen’s fraud claim. Therefore, without granting oral argument, we grant the petition for review, reverse
the judgment of the court of appeals, and render judgment that Sonnichsen take nothing.
BACM-2001 San Felipe Road LP v. Trafalgar Holdings I Ltd 218 S.W.3d 137 (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.]
Jan. 11, 2007)(Opinion by Justice Guzman) (commercial loan, breach of contract, statute of frauds)
REVERSED AND RENDERED: Opinion by Justice Guzman
(Before Justices Anderson, Hudson and Guzman)
14-05-00476-CV BACM-2001 San Felipe Road Limited Partnership Et Al v. Trafalgar Holdings I Ltd Et Al--
Appeal from 133rd District Court of Harris County (Judge Lamar McCorkle)
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE