John C. and Joan F. Stukes - Page 15




                                       - 14 -                                         
         gain from the sale of the Lakeshore property on their 2001                   
         Federal income tax return.                                                   
              Difficulty arose at the time of closing the sale of the                 
         Lakeshore property in 2001.  Petitioners believed that the real              
         estate agent who had organized the sale had damaged the Lakeshore            
         property and the contents of the house, consisting of                        
         furnishings, appliances, and other personal property.9                       
         Petitioners therefore refused to pay the realtor’s commission and            
         instead placed an amount equal to the realtor’s commission in an             
         escrow account.  When negotiation and mediation attempts failed,             
         the realtor brought suit against petitioners in the District                 
         Court of Llano County, Texas, seeking payment of the commission              
         as well as recovery of attorney’s fees.  Petitioners                         
         counterclaimed, alleging negligence, conversion, breach of                   
         contract, and violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-              
         Consumer Protection Act set forth in Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann.              
         secs. 17.41-17.63 (Vernon, 2002).  Specifically, petitioners                 
         alleged that they had been deprived of personal property                     
         consisting of household furnishings and appliances that had been             
         in the Lakeshore property.  The realtor prevailed in the district            
         court proceeding, and the amount of the realtor’s commission was             
         released from the escrow account.  The realtor was also awarded              

               9At the trial of this case, Mr. Stukes testified that the              
          personal property was already in the house when petitioners                 
          bought it.                                                                  






Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007