Trenholm v. Ratcliff

646 S.W.2d 927 (1983)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D, a land developer, entered into a joint venture agreement with Richardson Savings & Loan to develop and sell lots in a subdivision. D held a 'draw meeting' to solicit local builders. The meeting was attended by several builders, including P. D discussed the development, and invited the builders to purchase lots in the subdivision. D stated a mobile home park located nearby would be a future shopping center. P asked D about the mobile home park indicating that he would not buy lots until he knew its status. D answered, it's zoned commercial, and that property has already been sold. People have been notified that their leases will not be renewed, so the mobile home park should close up sometime in April. P built eighteen houses in the development. The mobile home park was owned by a third party. The mobile home park was not moved by the time the houses were completed for sale. The subdivision did poorly, and on June 23, 1976, a meeting was held by Ratcliff to discuss the slow sales. P again asked about the continued presence of the mobile home park, and he was told that the park would not be moved. The houses were ultimately sold at a net loss, and P settled his joint venture losses with Richardson Savings & Loan. P sued Ds for fraud. The jury found: (1) that D made false representations to P as to material facts with the intent to induce P to purchase lots, and which were relied on by P; (2) that the representations concerning the trailer park were not known by D to be false, but were made recklessly and with a purported special knowledge; (3) that the false representations were made with malice; (4) that P did not waive his claim against D; (5) that P could not have discovered the falsity of the false representation by reasonable investigation; (6) that P suffered $68,750 out-of-pocket losses on the six Oxford homes, $37,500 lost net profits on the twelve joint venture homes and $37,500 lost net profits on the Oxford homes; and (7) that $250,000 exemplary damages should be awarded. P and D both moved for a directed verdict. The trial court rendered judgment for D, and the court of appeals affirmed. P appealed. The trial court's take nothing judgment, was based on one of two grounds: that a finding of recklessness would not support a cause of action for fraud concerning a future prediction, or that there was no evidence to support the jury findings in P's favor.