Kotis v. Nowlin Jewelry, Inc.
844 S.W.2d 920 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A purchaser who acquires goods from a seller with voidable title cannot obtain good title if they do not act with "honesty in fact." Willful disregard of suspicious circumstances, such as a grossly inadequate price and deceptive conduct, negates a buyer's status as a good faith purchaser under UCC § 2.403.
Facts:
- Steve Sitton acquired a ladies' Rolex watch from Nowlin Jewelry, Inc. by using a forged check for $9,438.50 and misrepresenting that he had authorization for the purchase.
- The following day, Sitton offered to sell the watch to Eddie Kotis, the owner of a used car dealership.
- Kotis purchased the Rolex watch from Sitton for $3,550.00.
- On the same day as the purchase, Kotis telephoned Nowlin Jewelry to inquire about the watch.
- During the call, Kotis initially refused to identify himself and falsely told Cherie Nowlin that he did not have the watch, did not want the watch, and would not disclose Sitton's asking price.
- Nowlin Jewelry informed Kotis that Sitton had bought the watch the day before with a check that had not yet cleared.
Procedural Posture:
- Nowlin Jewelry, Inc. filed a suit in a Texas trial court for a declaratory judgment that it was the sole owner of the Rolex watch.
- Eddie Kotis filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that he was a good faith purchaser entitled to possession and title of the watch.
- After a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Nowlin, declaring it the sole owner.
- Kotis appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas 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 a buyer who purchases a watch for a significantly low price from a swindler, and who subsequently acts deceptively when inquiring about the transaction with the original owner, qualify as a 'good faith purchaser for value' entitled to good title under UCC § 2.403?
Opinions:
Majority - Draughn, Justice
No. A buyer who purchases goods under suspicious circumstances and acts deceptively does not qualify as a good faith purchaser. Although Sitton obtained the watch through a 'transaction of purchase' and thus acquired voidable title with the power to transfer good title, Kotis failed to qualify as a 'good faith purchaser' necessary to receive that good title. The test for good faith is 'honesty in fact,' a subjective standard based on the actual belief of the party. However, the court can infer a lack of subjective good faith from objective evidence. In this case, the exorbitantly low price Kotis paid for the watch ($3,550 for a watch worth $7,000-$8,000) and his deceptive conduct during his call with Nowlin Jewelry (initially concealing his identity, lying about possessing the watch) constituted sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Kotis did not act in good faith. The 'honesty in fact' standard does not permit a buyer to willfully disregard suspicious facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe the transaction was unlawful.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'good faith purchaser' doctrine under UCC § 2.403, demonstrating that a court can use objective evidence to invalidate a claim of subjective 'honesty in fact.' The decision establishes that while the good faith test is subjective, it does not protect a purchaser who willfully ignores clear red flags, such as a grossly inadequate price or their own deceptive behavior. This prevents the UCC's protections from being used as a shield for transactions where a buyer should have known something was amiss, reinforcing the principle that title cannot be cleansed through willful blindness.
Unlock the full brief for Kotis v. Nowlin Jewelry, Inc.