Opinion
No. 05-02-01181-CV.
Opinion Filed April 30, 2003.
Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 96-04369.
AFFIRM as MODIFIED.
Before Justices MOSELEY, O'NEILL, and LAGARDE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court's judgment conforms with this Court's mandate reversing in part a prior judgment in this case. In two issues, appellants Al Monroe and Tri-M Real Estate contend (1) the trial court erred in allowing for damages other than those provided for by this Court, and (2) the treble damage award for usury violates the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and the United States Constitution. For the following reasons, we modify the trial court's judgment and affirm the modified judgment.
This case involves a $25,000 loan to appellee Judy C. Culp Schlicting secured by her homestead. Schlicting sued appellants for fraudulent misrepresentation, usury, conspiracy, and declaratory judgment in connection with the loan. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered a judgment (1) canceling the deed to Schlicting's home, (2) awarding $10,000 in actual damages and $40,000 in punitive damages against Monroe for fraud, and (3) awarding $425,000 as a penalty for usury against Monroe and Tri-M. Monroe and Tri-M appealed to this Court. In an unpublished opinion, we concluded the trial court erred in not requiring Schlicting to elect between the fraud remedy of recission and the $10,000 award for actual fraud damages. See Monroe v. Schlicting, 05-98-01341-CV (Tex.App.-Dallas Mar. 29, 2001, pet. ref'd)(not designated for publication). We remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on election of remedies. We further concluded the trial court erred in awarding $425,000 in usury damages because that amount included $25,000 in principal. Thus, we modified the $425,000 award to provide for $400,000 in usury penalties. We affirmed the modified judgment in all other respects.
On remand, Schlicting elected the remedy of recission. Consequently, the trial court's judgment cancelled the deed conveying Schlicting's home to Monroe. However, the trial court's judgment also awarded $50,000 in fraud damages against Monroe, which included $10,000 in actual damages that we previously determined was improper if Schlicting elected the remedy of recission. The trial court's judgment also awarded $400,000 against Monroe and Tri-M for usury.
In their first point of error, appellants contend the trial court erred in awarding the $10,000 in actual fraud damages we previously held was improper if Schlicting elected the remedy of recission. Schlicting concedes on appeal that the trial court erred in including the $10,000 award. Therefore, we modify the judgment to reduce the $50,000 fraud award to $40,000.
Appellants next assert the trial court erred in awarding $400,000 for usury. According to appellants, in the prior appeal, this Court reversed the usury damages. Appellants misstate this Court's prior opinion and mandate. In the prior appeal, we did not reverse the usury damages in their entirety, rather we reduced the $425,000 award to $400,000. In cases involving a remand with specific instructions, the trial court is required to comply with the appellate court's instructions. Martin v. Credit Protection Ass'n, Inc., 824 S.W.2d 254, 256 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, writ dism'd w.o.j.). Therefore, the trial court did not err in including the previously affirmed usury penalty in its judgment.
In the second issue, appellants contend the $400,000 usury penalty violates provisions of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code and the United States Constitution. However, as stated above, this award was previously affirmed by this Court. Therefore, appellants cannot now complain of the usury award. See id.
We modify the trial court's judgment to reduce the $50,000 fraud damages award against Monroe to $40,000. As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.