Packard v. OCA, Inc.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22070, 624 F.3d 726, 2010 WL 4188473 (2010)
Rule of Law:
Under Texas law, courts generally will not grant equitable relief, such as unjust enrichment or money had and received, to a party seeking recovery of benefits conferred pursuant to an illegal contract when both parties are equally culpable (in pari delicto) and the illegal act has been consummated, as the policy against assisting wrongdoers typically outweighs the policy against permitting unjust enrichment.
Facts:
- Dr. Packard, his former partner, and their professional corporation entered into a long-term service agreement with Apple Orthodontix, Inc.
- Apple Orthodontix, Inc. provided practice management services to orthodontic practices in seventeen states before filing for bankruptcy in 2000.
- Apple Orthodontix, Inc. sold some of its assets, including the Packard–Apple contract, to OCA.
- Packard and OCA then entered into several agreements, including a Business Services Agreement (BSA) which called for a twenty-five year term for OCA to provide business and administrative support and services.
- Under the BSA, OCA paid Packard almost five million dollars in upfront affiliation payments and advances for the long-term management services agreement and for OCA to develop up to seven new offices with Packard.
- Five years into the BSA, Packard terminated the agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- Packard terminated the Business Services Agreement (BSA) and sued for a declaratory judgment that the Packard–OCA agreements were illegal and void in federal district court.
- OCA counterclaimed for breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, money had and received, and other remedies.
- Packard moved for summary judgment as to the illegality of the contract.
- The district court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of a related appeal to the Fifth Circuit concerning the legality of OCA’s standard contracts.
- The Fifth Circuit, in In re OCA, Inc. (2008), declared OCA’s standard contracts illegal under Texas law, concluding they allowed OCA to engage in the unlicensed practice of dentistry.
- The district court then lifted its stay of the proceedings.
- OCA conceded the illegality of the agreements, leaving its equitable counterclaims as the only remaining issues.
- Packard moved for summary judgment as to OCA’s equitable counterclaims.
- The district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge, who issued a report and recommendation suggesting summary judgment be granted in favor of Packard on OCA’s counterclaims.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation over OCA's objections, granting summary judgment for Packard on OCA’s counterclaims for unjust enrichment and money had and received.
- OCA appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on its counterclaims for unjust enrichment and money had and received to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 Texas law permit a party to an illegal contract, which allowed for the unlicensed practice of dentistry, to recover benefits conferred through equitable remedies when the illegal act has been consummated, the parties are in pari delicto, and no public policy demands such recovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Edith Brown Clement
No, Texas law does not permit OCA to recover benefits conferred under the illegal contract. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, applying the general Texas rule that courts will not aid parties to an illegal transaction. The court found that OCA could not establish a right to recovery independent of the illegal contract because calculating any recovery would require examining the contract's terms and performance over several years, going beyond mere incidental reference, especially since the illegal act (unlicensed practice of dentistry) was consummated. Furthermore, the court concluded that OCA and Packard were in pari delicto, bearing substantially equal responsibility for the illegal contract, as both were sophisticated entities presumed to know the law, and Packard did not conceal knowledge or induce OCA by fraud. The court rejected OCA's argument that Packard's alleged violation of a heightened duty under the Texas Administrative Code made OCA less culpable, noting that the statute protects the public, not corporations engaged in illegal practice, and OCA's own conduct could be a felony. Finally, the court determined that public policy did not demand relief for OCA. While allowing recovery might disincentivize dentists from entering such agreements, the In re OCA ruling already significantly reduced this risk. Additionally, allowing OCA to recover could incentivize future corporations to enter potentially illegal agreements, believing they could recover if caught. Therefore, the court held that the policy against assisting a wrongdoer outweighed the policy against permitting unjust enrichment in this case, serving the higher public interest of preventing the unlicensed practice of dentistry.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict application of Texas's in pari delicto doctrine and the general prohibition against courts aiding parties to illegal contracts, particularly those violating public health and safety statutes. It clarifies that equitable remedies like unjust enrichment are generally unavailable when both parties bear substantially equal responsibility for the illegality and the illicit performance has been completed. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in upholding public policy over private claims of fairness between wrongdoers, especially where professional licensing laws are at stake. Future cases involving contracts that contravene statutory prohibitions or professional standards will likely face high barriers to recovery if parties are deemed equally culpable, even if it results in one party being arguably 'unjustly' enriched.
