Horton v. DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Ams., LLC - 262 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2008)

Rule:

To prevail on a traditional motion for summary judgment, a movant must establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c). When reviewing a summary judgment, the appellate court takes as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant and indulge every reasonable inference and resolves any doubts in the nonmovant's favor. Summary judgment for a defendant is proper when the defendant negates at least one element of each of the plaintiff's theories of recovery or pleads and conclusively establishes each element of an affirmative defense.

Facts:

All seemed to concede that the debt Larry D. Horton owed to DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Americas, L.L.C., f/k/a Mercedes-Benz Financial and Commercial Recovery Systems, Inc. (Daimler) had been settled in 2003 through Daimler's agent, Commercial Recovery Systems, Inc. (Commercial). Horton believed that settlement included an obligation of Daimler and Commercial to remove from his credit report any adverse information about the Daimler debt. When Horton applied in 2005 to purchase a house and a commercial truck, he discovered his credit report still contained adverse information concerning the account. Horton sued Daimler and Commercial for breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment to Damler and Commercial. Horton appealed. 

Issue:

Was the grant of summary judgment in favor of Damler and Commercial proper under the circumstances? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court reversed and remanded. While Damler and Commercial could have included a specific manner of acceptance in their offer to Horton, the plain language of the offer did not contain any such requirement. Horton’s act in tendering the first installment was a clear, unequivocal act indicating acceptance. This act informed Damler and Commercial that the offer had been accepted and was within the time specified for acceptance of the offer. Thus, a contract was formed when Horton tendered the first installment. There were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the Damler and Commercial waived the payment due date requirements. Because there were genuine issues of material fact, the trial court erred in granting the joint motion for summary judgment.