Nguyen Vs Morton Case Summary

FACTS: In 2007, Hung and Carol Nguyen entered a contract with Kevin Morton to purchase a property. After complying for 3 years, the Nguyens advised Morton that they would be utilizing their statutory right to cancel and revoke the contract for deed. Along with the cancelation, they ordered to get reimbursed for all thirty-four payments made, down payment, insurance policy payments made, and taxes paid during the term. Leading Morton to not only making the Nguyens vacate the property, but demanded payments and sued them for breaking the terms in the contract. Counterclaiming, the Nguyens’, accused Morton violated the property code and did not meet the requirements under Subchapter D. However, Morton argued that the Nguyens’ we’re not supposed

to be the only ones getting restitution.
ISSUES: Does a seller’s failure to comply with Subchapter D’s requirements entitle a buyer to cancel a contract for deed? If so, does it give the buyer the right to get reimbursed in full? Was Motrin eligible for restitution after the contract was rescinded?
DECISION: The Nguyens were entitled to end the contract for deed because of Morton’s failure to comply with the Subchapter D.

Due to the fact that the court did not consider the time the Nguyens spent in the property, the case was referred to the trial court to decide Nguyens’ responsibility for the rental value during occupation. Corresponding, Morton was granted a petition for review.
LAW: Section 5.077 of property Code, which provides buyers with the amount paid and remaining payments under contract, was broken, allowing The Nguyens to use their statutory right, a right granted under the property code, to end the contract. Subchapter D's cancellation-and-rescission, which states that one has to give the seller a timely notice and offer to tender to the property due to any of the sellers’ benefits derived. Because Morton’s restitution was not considered, he was granted a petition for review.
REASON: Because the Nguyens terminated the contract due to Morton’s negligence of the property code, they were awarded with the following; actual damages, liquidated damages for violation of the property code, statutory remedy for violations of the finance code, mental anguish damages, attorney’s fee, and costs. However, Chapter’s 5, Subchapter D provides both parties with restitution benefits, not just one of them. Because the court did not consider the time the Nguyens spent in the property, the case was referred to the trial court to decide Nguyens’ responsibility for the rental value

during occupation, granting Morton with a petition for review.