 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alford v. Lingo8/10/1995
Motions for Rehearing Overruled and Opinion of June 8, 1995 Withdrawn;
Affirmed and Opinion on Motion for Rehearing filed August 10, 1995.
08/10/1995
O P I N I O N O N M O T I O N S F O R R E H E A R I N G
This is an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of James and Carol Lingo (the Lingos), and against D.R. Alford and Alford Realty (collectively referred to as "Alford") in a suit arising from the Lingos' purchase of land in Brazoria County. The Lingos sued Alford, a real estate broker, and his realty company under multiple legal theories alleging that Alford knew at the time of the transaction that a gas pipeline was on the property and that he intentionally concealed that fact to make the sale. Alford brings thirteen points of error contending there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The Lingos bring one cross-point contending the trial incorrectly calculated prejudgment interest. Because we find the judgement correct in all respects, we affirm.
Facts
In 1983, the Lingos purchased 16.3 acres of land in Brazoria County from the Meadors (the Lingo tract). The Lingos paid $35,000.00 for the property. At the time of purchase, the Lingos were unaware that a high pressure gas pipeline existed beneath the property. The gas pipeline was part of a Pennzoil feed line that ran under County Road 505 and the land adjacent to, and including, the Lingo tract. See Appendix. In completing the purchase, the Lingos dealt solely with the Meadors' listing agent, D.R. Alford. The listing agreement that Alford obtained from the Meadors did not mention a pipeline or any other alleged structural defects. Mrs. Meador testified at trial that she did not know that a pipeline was on her land.
The Lingos met with Alford on three occasions before they purchased the land. The first time was to obtain permission to inspect the land; the second, to learn the Meadors' asking price; and the third, to make an offer. During these meetings, Alford never advised the Lingos about the existence of the pipeline. By the same token, Mr. Lingo did not ask Alford any questions about the land. Although there were several gas wells and pumping stations in the area, there was nothing on the surface of the Lingo tract to evidence the existence of a pipeline. In 1989, the Lingos learned about the pipeline from a neighbor, Dale Hudson. James Lingo and a friend were back-hoeing a ditch when Mr. Hudson came running across the property shouting to Mr. Lingo to stop digging because there was a pipeline "right there."
Suit and Trial
In 1991, the Lingos filed suit against Alford for failing to disclose that the pipeline was on their land. The Lingos alleged violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) (TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. Section(s) 17.50, 17.46 (Vernon 1987 & Supp. 1995)), real estate fraud (TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. Section(s) 27.01 (Vernon 1987)), negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, and negligence. The trial was in January 1994, and lasted four days. The case was submitted to the jury on theories of deceptive trade practices, real estate fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.
Verdict
The jury answered in favor of the Lingos on each of the theories of liability submitted. The jury awarded the Lingos actual damages as follows: (1) $200.00 for past mental anguish; (2) $5000.00 for the difference between the value of the land as received and the value of the land as represented -- "benefit of the bargain" damages; (3) $10,000.00 for the difference between the value of the land as received and the value of the land as paid for -- "out-of-pocket" damages; and (4
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|