## Facts

- A financing company hired a repossession contractor to repossess a delinquent white 2002 Ford Expedition owned by a borrower in default and provided an address.
- The address belonged to the borrower’s brother, whose family owned a different white Ford Expedition (a 2003 model) financed by the same lender and not in default.
- The repossession agent went to the address, saw a white Expedition, noted the license plate did not match, and could not see the VIN.
- The next morning, the agent towed the Chapas’ Expedition from the street while two minor children (ages 10 and 6) were inside; the keys were in the ignition.
- Neither parent witnessed the towing; the agent discovered the children shortly after and returned the vehicle and children to the home within minutes.
- The children were not physically injured; the parents claimed serious emotional injuries, including anxiety and PTSD diagnoses.

## Issues

1. Whether the mistaken, brief towing of the vehicle with children inside constituted a “breach of the peace” barring self-help repossession liability under Texas Business & Commerce Code § 9.609.
2. Whether the lender and repossession defendants could be liable to the parents under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 424 (statutory duty) or 427 (inherently dangerous work).
3. Whether the parents’ negligence-based mental anguish claims, including the mother’s bystander claim, were legally viable without contemporaneous perception or physical injury.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for all defendants on the parents’ claims.
- The parents had no viable claim for breach of the peace under § 9.609 on these facts.
- Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 424 and 427 did not impose liability on the lender or the repossession defendants for the parents’ alleged emotional injuries.
- The mother’s bystander claim and the parents’ remaining negligence theories failed as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Self-help repossession under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 9.609 is prohibited only if conducted with a “breach of the peace”; the analysis centers on whether the repossession involved confrontation, threats, or violence.
- A bystander claim for mental anguish requires the claimant’s presence and contemporaneous perception of the event causing injury to a close family member; learning of the event after it occurs is insufficient.
- Texas does not recognize an independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress; mental anguish damages in negligence generally require a legally recognized basis beyond emotional distress alone.
- Restatement §§ 424 and 427 do not extend liability for emotional distress on these facts where the asserted statutory duty and “inherently dangerous” doctrines do not fit the activity and claimed harm.

## Conclusion

The court held that the parents could not recover for mental anguish arising from a mistaken repossession where there was no confrontation or violence, the parents did not witness the towing, the children suffered no physical injury, and Texas law did not permit recovery under § 9.609, Restatement-based nondelegable-duty theories, or negligence and bystander doctrines.


Chapa v. Traciers & Assocs., 267 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008)