Diversified, Inc. v. Gibraltar Savings Ass'n
1988 WL 138409, 1988 Tex. App. LEXIS 2393, 762 S.W.2d 620 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unintentional misrepresentation, such as conducting a foreclosure sale due to an administrative error after the underlying debt has been satisfied, can constitute a violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). Unlike common law claims for fraud or negligence, many provisions of the DTPA do not require proof of intent to deceive.
Facts:
- Andrew and Rebecca Johnson held a mortgage on their property with Gibraltar Savings Association (Gibraltar) as the lienholder.
- After the Johnsons became delinquent on their loan in early 1985, Gibraltar initiated foreclosure proceedings, scheduling a sale for May 7, 1985.
- On April 26, 1985, before the scheduled sale, the Johnsons paid the entire loan balance in full to Gibraltar.
- Gibraltar informed the Johnsons that the foreclosure was cancelled, but due to an 'administrative error,' failed to notify the substitute trustee, Diane Smith.
- On May 7, 1985, Smith proceeded with the foreclosure sale, unaware that the debt had been paid.
- Diversified, Inc. (Diversified) was the successful bidder at the void sale, paying $2,732.00 for the property.
- The following day, Smith executed and delivered a trustee's deed to Diversified, purporting to convey ownership of the Johnsons' property.
- Shortly thereafter, Gibraltar discovered its error, informed Diversified that the sale was invalid, and attempted to return the purchase money.
Procedural Posture:
- After the void sale, Gibraltar and the Johnsons sued Diversified in trial court to cancel the substitute trustee's deed.
- Diversified subsequently conveyed the property back to the Johnsons in exchange for an assignment of the Johnsons' potential causes of action against Gibraltar and its agents.
- The trial court realigned the parties, with Diversified becoming the plaintiff against defendants Gibraltar, Diane Smith, and the law firm Lapin, Totz & Mayer.
- Diversified asserted claims for breach of warranty, fraud, negligence, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Diversified's causes of action except for the issue of whether a valid tender of the purchase price had been made.
- Diversified, as appellant, appealed the trial court's summary judgment order to the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does conducting a foreclosure sale on a property where the underlying debt has been paid constitute a violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), even if the sale resulted from an unintentional administrative error?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, Justice
Yes. Conducting a foreclosure sale after the debt has been satisfied constitutes a violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) even if the action was unintentional. The court affirmed the dismissal of common law claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and negligence, citing precedent that a buyer at a foreclosure sale purchases 'at his own peril' and that no duty of care was owed to the bidder. However, the DTPA claim is distinct from these common law actions. The DTPA is a consumer protection statute that must be liberally construed and is not a codification of common law, meaning common law defenses are inapplicable. The substitute trustee's act of conducting the sale represented that she had an authority and that the sale conferred rights which, in fact, did not exist. Several of the DTPA provisions prohibiting such misrepresentations do not require proof of knowledge or intent to deceive. Therefore, the 'administrative error' defense is not sufficient to defeat the DTPA claim, and summary judgment on that cause of action was improper.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) by separating DTPA liability from the intent-based requirements of common law torts like fraud and negligence. By holding that an unintentional 'administrative error' can trigger a DTPA violation, the case establishes a form of strict liability for misrepresentations made during consumer transactions like foreclosure sales. This precedent lowers the burden of proof for plaintiffs in DTPA cases, as they do not need to demonstrate the defendant's state of mind for many enumerated violations. Consequently, it compels lenders and trustees to implement more rigorous internal controls, as simple errors can lead to significant statutory liability beyond the mere rescission of a void sale.
Unlock the full brief for Diversified, Inc. v. Gibraltar Savings Ass'n