Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Kotis v. Nowlin Jewelry

844 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. App. 1992)

tl;dr: If a purchaser knows that he is buying stolen goods, he cannot be considered a good faith purchaser for value.

AI Deep Dive

Font size -+
Level 1
Click below ๐Ÿ‘‡ to deep dive

Eddie Kotis sued Nowlin Jewelry, Inc. over the ownership of a Rolex watch that he purchased from Steve Sitton, who had acquired it by forging a check. Nowlin Jewelry claimed that they were the rightful owner of the watch and the court awarded them attorney's fees. Kotis appealed the judgment, but the Court of Appeals affirmed it. The court found that Sitton did not purchase the watch from Nowlin and declared them the sole owner of the watch.

Kotis argued that he is a good faith purchaser of a Rolex watch under the UCC, as there was a voluntary transfer and physical delivery of the watch from Nowlin Jewelry to Steve Sitton, who then sold it to Kotis. Kotis claimed that he has good title to the watch under ยง 2.403, which allows a purchaser to acquire all title that their transferor had or had power to transfer.

The court found that Sitton obtained voidable title to the Rolex watch through a voluntary transaction of purchase, despite paying with a forged check. Therefore, Kotis, who purchased the watch from Sitton in good faith, also has good title to the watch under ยง 2.403. The court also found that Kotis acted in good faith when purchasing the watch, as he believed Sitton had obtained it lawfully. The trial court erred in concluding otherwise.

Kotis purchased a Rolex watch from Sitton, who had bought it from Nowlin's with a forged check. Nowlin's informed Kotis of the dishonored check and advised him to contact his attorney, but Kotis refused to talk to them. The trial court found that Kotis did not act in good faith and upheld the decision to award attorney's fees and post-judgment interest to Nowlin's. Kotis' challenges to the court's conclusions regarding conversion, constructive trust, possession, and title of the watch are overruled, and his counterclaims for damages and attorney's fees are denied. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

IRACIssue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

๐Ÿคฏ High points ๐ŸคฏKey points contributed by students on LSD

Facts & Holding

Facts:Sitton purchased a watch from Nowlin Jewelry by forging a...

Holding:The court held that because Kotis was aware that Sitton...

Kotis v. Nowlin Jewelry

Chat for Kotis v. Nowlin Jewelry
๐Ÿ‘ Chat vibe: 0 ๐Ÿ‘Ž
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you