Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Appellees Bounpone Menevilay and Sypanome Menevilay alleged in their suit that they entered into an oral agreement with appellants Von Ratsavong and Fong Souphankhaysy for the purchase of a real property. At the time, the appellees did not have the credit to purchase the house. But the agreement entered into allegedly allowed appellees to borrow appellants’ credit to purchase the home, an allegedly customary practice in the country of Laos, where the parties had met 30 years before. As agreed upon, the appellees paid a $2,000 down payment. At the time the agreement was entered into, the property was in poor condition and had been purchased “as is” with the understanding that the appellees would complete the necessary repairs. By the time the suit was initiated, the appellees had paid in full the debt to appellants and had made repairs in the home of an estimated cost of $28,000. At trial, evidence was presented that, once the mortgage on the house was paid, Ratsavong refused to transfer the deed to the appellees. Rather, appellees received a notice to vacate and notice of termination of tenancy at will from Ratsavong’s attorney. Appellants denied appellees’ allegations and claimed that they had never agreed to do anything but rent the property to appellees. Appellees testified that they did not believe they were renting the home and would never have made such extensive repairs if they were only renting. The trial court found the appellees to be more credible and awarded title to the appellees and reimbursement to the appellants for the monies they paid in taxes and insurance after appellees stopped paying those expenses. Appellants sought review of the trial court’s judgment awarding title to the property to appellees. HOLDING:Affirmed. After rejecting several of appellants’ issues on appeal as improperly briefed, the court proceeds to address appellants’ claim that the trial court should have granted their motion for directed verdict because the Statute of Frauds prohibits the enforcement of the alleged oral agreement because it contained indefinite terms. But the court notes that appellants moved for a directed verdict after appellees rested. After the trial court overruled the motion, appellants proceeded with their own witnesses. At the conclusion of the evidence, appellants did not reurge their motion for a directed verdict. Under these circumstances, the court holds, any error under the denial of the motion for directed verdict is waived. The court then addresses appellants’ legal sufficiency arguments. Particularly, appellants complain that there was no evidence of what the actual price of the contract was. Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to such a finding, the court finds that the testimony provided by the appellees in which they indicated that Ratsavong had represented that the home was worth $14,500 indicating this was the price of the contract. The court also finds that the evidence was legally sufficient to support a finding that the consideration paid by the appellees was in the form of the $2,000 down payment and that appellees made valuable and permanent improvements to the property with appellants’ consent. Appellants next contend that appellees’ claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations, making the trial court’s enforcement of the oral contract error. According to the appellants, the oral contract was entered into in 1994, but the suit was not filed until October 2002, not within the four-year statute of limitations for a breach of contract in Texas. The court, however, finds that the earliest date on which appellants could have breached the promise to transfer the deed was in 2001, the date when the mortgage was paid in full and the earliest appellees testified appellants refused to transfer the deed. Therefore, applying the general four-year statute of limitations to appellees’ claims, appellees timely filed suit. OPINION:Barajas, C.J.; Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Guaderrama, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.