Richard Williams D/B/A Rich's Fine Jewelry v. Troy Dodson, Sr.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-97-00705-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; July 16, 1998; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Richard Williams, operating as Rich's Fine Jewelry, is appealing a judgment from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Jefferson County, which ruled in favor of Troy Dodson, who sued for conversion and violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). The trial court awarded Dodson damages of $12,516.30. Williams presents three points of error on appeal: he contends that the trial court used an incorrect measure of damages, that Dodson failed to provide sufficient evidence for the damages awarded, and that Dodson was not entitled to prejudgment interest or additional damages under DTPA section 17.50(b)(1). 

The case centers on the sale of a diamond and emerald bracelet that Dodson had purchased in the late 1970s as a gift. In November 1993, Dodson brought the bracelet and two other pieces to Williams for sale. The parties disagree on whether Dodson authorized Williams to sell the jewelry or only to reappraise it. Williams sold the bracelet for $1,200 without Dodson's consent and later returned the other pieces along with a check for the sale proceeds, minus a commission. Dodson claimed that Williams lacked the authority to sell the bracelet, leading to his lawsuit. 

The trial court found that Williams did not have the authority to sell the bracelet and assessed its intrinsic and market value at $8,750. The damages awarded to Dodson included $8,750 for actual damages, $2,000 in additional damages under the DTPA, and $1,766.30 for prejudgment interest, totaling $12,516.30. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Williams appeals on three grounds: he contends that the proper measure of actual damages for the bracelet should be its market value rather than its intrinsic value; he asserts that Dodson failed to provide sufficient evidence for the damages awarded; and he claims that without evidence of actual damages, Dodson is not entitled to pre-judgment interest or additional awards under the DTPA. The central issue is whether the trial court applied the correct measure of damages. 

The established rule for determining damages for lost or converted marketable chattels distinguishes between goods held for sale and those for the owner's comfort. For chattels held for sale, damages are based on market value; for those held for personal use, damages reflect the intrinsic value to the owner. The trial court did not specify whether the bracelet was held for sale or for personal use but found both its market and intrinsic value to be $8,750.

Omitted findings may be presumed if certain conditions are met. In this case, the trial court's findings confirmed Williams's liability for conversion and DTPA violations, including that Dodson did not consent to the sale of the bracelet, and that Williams's actions caused Dodson actual damages. The evidence supports a presumption that the bracelet was held for the Dodsons' comfort and well-being, as it was a gift to Mrs. Dodson and was worn over many years.

Mrs. Dodson possessed the bracelet for her personal enjoyment, categorizing it as a personal effect meant for her comfort and well-being, similar to household items, clothing, and jewelry. Williams argued that since Mrs. Dodson had not worn the bracelet for three years and had attempted to sell it, it should be considered held solely for sale. The court disagreed, stating that the character of personal effects does not change merely because the owner decides to sell them. Evidence indicated that the bracelet was held for Mrs. Dodson's comfort over a 15-year period, leading the court to determine that the appropriate measure of damages was the bracelet's intrinsic value. Williams's claims regarding the market value of the bracelet and the sufficiency of evidence for damages were rejected. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the award of prejudgment interest and damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.