Coker v. Coker
- Court
- Texas Supreme Court
- Decided
- May 4, 1983
- Docket
- C-1728
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
Cited 2,505 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a court may properly construe a contract as a matter of law when it is clear and unambiguous — Norris v. Housing Authority of City of Galveston (1997)
- concluding that agreement was ambiguous even though both parties asserted it was unambiguous and moved for summary judgment — Senna Hills, Ltd. and HBH Development Company, LLC v. Sonterra Energy Corporation (2010)
- concluding that agreement was ambiguous even though both parties asserted it was unambiguous and moved for summary judgment — Senna Hills, Ltd. and HBH Development Company, LLC v. Sonterra Energy Corporation (2009)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
BARROW, Justice.
This suit was brought by Frances Kincaid Coker (Frances) against her former husband, Mac L. Coker, Jr. (Mac), on a property settlement agreement incorporated into their divorce decree. The decree awarded Frances a real estate commission previously earned by Mac from the sale of certain ranch property. The seller of the property was to pay the commission in seven annual installments as payments were made by the purchaser. After Frances received payments totaling $14,317.16, the purchaser defaulted and no further commissions were receivable. The question presented here is whether Mac agreed to pay Frances a minimum of $25,000 or whether Frances was assigned all of Mac’s interest in the commissions to be paid by the seller in this particular transaction.
Both parties asserted that the property settlement agreement was unambiguous and each moved for a favorable summary judgment. The trial court construed the agreement as one of guaranty and rendered summary judgment that Frances recover the sum of $10,682.84 from Mac. The court of appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Tex.R.Civ.P. 452. We reverse the judgments of the courts below and remand the cause to the trial court.
Cite this
Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391 (1983)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.