AMERIPLAN CORPORATION, Appellant, v. ANTHONY ANDERSON, Appellee.

340 Pages·2012·7.17 MB·English

ACCEPTED
225EFJ016930734
FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS
DALLAS, TEXAS
12 June 15 P2:01
Lisa Matz
NO. 05-11-00628-CV
CLERK
In the Fifth District Court of Appeals
Dallas, Texas
________________________________________
AMERIPLAN CORPORATION,
Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY ANDERSON,
Appellee.
________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE 191ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. DC-07-14089
________________________________________
B A A A
RIEF OF PPELLEE NTHONY NDERSON
________________________________________
Ross A. Sears, II Byron C. Keeling
State Bar No. 17960011 State Bar No. 11157980
[email protected] [email protected]
SEARS (cid:112) CRAWFORD, L.L.P. Ruth B. Downes
1200 Rothwell Street State Bar No. 06085330
Houston, Texas 77002 [email protected]
Telephone: [phone] KEELING & DOWNES, P.C.
Facsimile: [phone] 1500 McGowen, Suite 220
Houston, Texas 77004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Appellee Anthony Anderson
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
IDENTITY OF PARTIES
Appellant:
AmeriPlan Corporation
Appellant’s Trial Counsel:
Mark L. Hill
COWLES & THOMPSON, P.C.
901 Main Street, Suite 3900
Dallas, Texas 75202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
David Graham Upton
AmeriPlan Legal Department
5700 Democracy Drive, Suite 1000
Plano, Texas 75024
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Appellant’s Appellate Counsel:
Byron K. Henry
Hilaree A. Casada
COWLES & THOMPSON, P.C.
901 Main Street, Suite 3900
Dallas, Texas 75202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Brief of Appellee Anthony Anderson i
Appellee
Anthony Anderson
Anderson’s Counsel:
Ross A. Sears, II
Sears (cid:112) Crawford, L.L.P.
1200 Rothwell Street
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Byron C. Keeling
Ruth B. Downes
KEELING & DOWNES, P.C.
1500 McGowen, Suite 220
Houston, Texas 77004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Brief of Appellee Anthony Anderson ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
REFERENCE CITATION GUIDE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi
INTRODUCTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
I. THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE
TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT IN ANDERSON’S FAVOR ON ANDERSON’S
CLAIM FOR BREACH OF THE SALES DIRECTOR CONTRACT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A. The Parol Evidence Rule Does Not Apply to Appellant’s
Promises of Lifetime Vested Income.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. The Jury Was Entitled to Consider Appellant’s
Promises of Lifetime Vested Income Under the
Collateral Consistent Agreement Exception to the
Parol Evidence Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. The Jury Was Entitled to Consider Appellant’s
Promises of Lifetime Vested Income Under the Fraud
Exception to the Parol Evidence Rule.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B. The Merger Clause in the Broker Application is Irrelevant to
Anderson’s Claim for Breach of the Sales Director Contract. . . . . 19
1. Appellant Offered No Evidence that Anderson Was
Aware of, and Agreed to, the Merger Clause in the
Broker Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Brief of Appellee Anthony Anderson iii
2. The Merger Clause in the Broker Application Does Not
Bar Evidence of a Collateral Agreement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
C. The Evidence in the Record Amply Supports the Jury’s
Finding in Anderson’s Favor on Anderson’s Claim for Breach
of Written Contract.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
II. THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A
JUDGMENT IN ANDERSON’S FAVOR ON ANDERSON’S FRAUD AND
BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT CLAIMS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A. The Evidence at Trial Amply Supports the Jury’s Finding in
Anderson’s Favor on Anderson’s Fraud Claim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. The Parol Evidence Rule Does Not Apply to
Appellant’s Fraud Claim Against Appellant.. . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2. Anderson Secured an Adequate Jury Finding of
Appellant’s Fraud Against Anderson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3. Anderson May Properly Recover Benefit of the
Bargain Damages for Appellant’s Tortious Conduct in
Fraudulently Inducing Anderson to Enter Into the
Broker Application and the SDC.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4. The Evidence in the Record is Legally Sufficient to
Establish the Elements of Anderson’s Fraud Claim. . . . . . . 34
B. The Evidence at Trial Amply Supports the Jury’s Finding in
Anderson’s Favor on Anderson’s Breach of Oral Contract
Claim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1. The Sales Director Contract Does Not Preclude
Anderson’s Claim for Breach of Oral Contract. . . . . . . . . . 38
2. The Merger Clause in the Broker Application is
Irrelevant to Anderson’s Claim for Breach of Oral
Contract.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3. The Evidence in the Record is Legally Sufficient to
Establish the Elements of Anderson’s Claim for Breach
of Oral Contract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Brief of Appellee Anthony Anderson iv
4. As a Matter of Law, the Statute of Frauds Does Not
Apply to the Oral Contract Between Appellant and
Anderson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
III. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES TO
ANDERSON IN ENTERING ITS FINAL JUDGMENT IN ANDERSON’S
FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
A. The Terms of the SDC Are Insufficient to Bar Anderson
From Recovering Attorney’s Fees Under Section 38.001 of
the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
B. The Trial Court Properly Exercised Its Discretion to Permit
Anderson to Offer Evidence of His Reasonable and Necessary
Attorney’s Fees.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Brief of Appellee Anthony Anderson v
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Case Page(s)
1001 McKinney Ltd. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital,
192 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied).. . . . . . . . . 35
American Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Montgomery,
640 S.W.2d 346 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1982, writ ref’d n.r.e.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Amouri v. Southwest Toyota, Inc.,
20 S.W.3d 165 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. denied).. . . . . . . . 28, 30-31, 32
Anderson v. McRae,
495 S.W.2d 351 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.).. . . . . . . . . 29
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Hubler,
211 S.W.3d 859 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, judgment vacated w.r.m.).. . . . . . . . . 47
Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen,
221 S.W.3d 632 (Tex. 2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Beverick v. Koch Power, Inc.,
186 S.W.3d 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . 45
Big Wheel Dev., Inc. v. Orange County Building Materials, Inc.,
No. 09-07-381-CV, 2008 WL 2521926 (Tex. App.—Beaumont
June 26, 2008, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Blackmon-Dunda v. Mary Kay, Inc.,
No. 05-08-00192-CV, 2009 WL 866214 (Tex. App.—Dallas
April 1, 2009, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand,
83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Boondoggles Corp. v. Yancey,
No. 01-05-00185-CV, 2006 WL 2192708 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Aug. 3, 2006, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Burleson State Bank v. Plunkett,
27 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, pet. denied).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Brief of Appellee Anthony Anderson vi
Case Page(s)
Carpenter v. Carpenter,
No. 02-10-00243-CV, 2011 WL 5118802 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth Oct. 27, 2011, no pet. h.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Carr v. Christie,
970 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Castle Tex. Prod. L.P. v. Long Trusts,
134 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
City of El Paso v. Parsons,
353 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
City of Keller v. Wilson,
168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp.,
823 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Dallas Farm Machinery Co. v. Reaves,
158 Tex. 1, 307 S.W.2d 233 (1957). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-28, 31
David Berg & Co. v. Ravkind,
375 S.W.2d 317 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
David J. Sacks, P.C. v. Haden,
266 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. 2008).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 20
DeClaire v. G&B McIntosh Family L.P.,
260 S.W.3d 34 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.). . . . . . . . 19, 30, 35
Diamond Offshore Mgmt. Co. v. Guidry,
171 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. 2005).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
DiPietro v. Glidewell Labs.,
No. 1:CV-07-1591, 2011 WL 5403568 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Dora v. Mullick,
No. 06-99-00135-CV, 2000 WL 33322942 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
May 31, 2001, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Brief of Appellee Anthony Anderson vii
Case Page(s)
DRC Parts & Accessories, L.L.C. v. VM Motori, S.P.A.,
112 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).. . . . . . . . 35
Dunham v. Chatham,
21 Tex. 231, 1858 WL 5445 (1858).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Eagle Prop., Ltd. v. Scharbauer,
807 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. 1990).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Ellwood Tex. Forge Corp. v. Jones,
214 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied).. . . . . . . . 12
Energy Maint. Servs. Group I, LLC v. Sandt,
No. 14-09-00907-CV, 2012 WL 1038043 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] March 29, 2012, no pet. h.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
ERI Consulting Eng’rs, Inc. v. Swinnea,
318 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. 2010).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-15
Esty v. Beal Bank S.S.B.,
298 S.W.3d 280 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Exxon Corp. v. Breezevale Ltd.,
82 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Exxon Corp. v. West Tex. Gathering Co.,
868 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. 1993).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Fairmont Supply Co. v. Hooks Indus., Inc.,
177 S.W.3d 529 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . 47
Fish v. Tandy Corp.,
948 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Fisher Controls Int’l, Inc. v. Gibbons,
911 S.W.2d 135 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied).. . . 29-31, 38
Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc.,
960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-18, 32, 33-34
Brief of Appellee Anthony Anderson viii
Case Page(s)
Gaines v. Kelly,
235 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. 2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Gannon v. Baker,
818 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. 1991).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Glassford v. Brickkicker,
35 A.3d 1044 (Vt. 2011).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Gold Kist, Inc. v. Carr,
886 S.W.2d 425 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1994, writ denied). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Haase v. Glazner,
62 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. 2001).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Hall v. Hall,
158 Tex. 95, 308 S.W.2d 12 (1958). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Hawkins v. Jones,
No. 05-06-00139-CV, 2007 WL 2004913 (Tex. App.—Dallas
July 12, 2007, pet. denied). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Herring v. Heron Lakes Estates Owners Ass’n, Inc.,
No. 14-09-00772-CV, 2011 WL 2739517 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] Jan. 4, 2011, no pet.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Hilburn v. Providian Holdings, Inc.,
No. 01-06-00961-CV, 2008 WL 4836840 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Nov. 6, 2008, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Hubacek v. Ennis State Bank,
159 Tex. 166, 317 S.W.2d 30 (1958). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
In re Orkin Exterminating Co.,
No. 01-01-00035-CV, 2001 WL 871738 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Aug. 2, 2001, orig. proceeding).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Interceramic, Inc. v. South Orient R.R. Co.,
999 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, pet. denied).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Brief of Appellee Anthony Anderson ix