Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Merrill
Kotis v. Nowlin Jewelry, Inc.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Steve Sitton obtained a gold rolex watch from Nowlin Jewelry, Inc., Plaintiff, in a fraudulent manner by forging a check to purchase the watch in the amount of $9,438.50. Eddie Kotis, Defendant, a used car dealer, bought the watch from Sitton for $3,550 in Defendant’s car lot. Upon a Defendant’s friend’s advice, Defendant spoke to Plaintiff to find out whether Sitton had financed the watch. Further, Defendant spoke with Cherie Nowlin, who was the wife of Nowlin’s president, John Nowlin. At first, Defendant did not identify himself or reveal the price Sitton’s was asking for the watch. Additionally, Defendant stated that he did not have the watch nor want it. Once John Nowlin became aware that Sitton’s check would not be honored by the bank, John Nowlin called Defendant. Defendant refused to speak to John. Instead, Defendant referred John to Defendant’s attorney. Later, Sitton was indicted for forgery and theft. Plaintiff brought a declaratory action seeking the court to finds that it was the watch’s sole owner. Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking the court to find that he was a good faith purchaser of the watch, thus, being entitled to possess and hold title to the it. The trial court found that Plaintiff was the only owner of the watch. Additionally, the court held that Sitton did not obtain the watch through a “transaction of purchase,” within the meaning of Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 2.403(a), with Plaintiff. Under the statute, a person with voidable title is entitled to transfer good title to a good faith purchaser for value only if the goods were delivered through fraud, provided the goods were delivered under a “transaction of purchase.” On appeal, Defendant asserted that the trial court improperly found that Sitton did not obtain the watch through a transaction of purchase with Plaintiff, Sitton did not have voidable title, and Defendant did not have good title because he was not a good faith purchaser.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.