A clean example of “no evidence,” as a result of the terms of a legal document, appears in Coyle v. Jones: “The express language of the Agreement creating the trust at issue provided that the trust agreement could be revoked ‘at any time during the joint lives of the Trustors.’ (emphasis added). The Agreement further provided that other than that, when either trustor died, “the designation of Beneficiaries of specific gifts in this Trust shall become irrevocable, and not subject to amendment or modification.” The only evidence of revocation before the jury, however, was Frances’s 2010 written revocation. It is undisputed that Frances executed the revocation almost nine years after Stuart’s death.” No. 05-16-00876-CV (Nov. 30, 2017) (mem. op.)

Highland Capital won a judgment for over $20 million based on the alleged breach of a contract by RBC Capital to sell a package of notes.  RBC Capital Markets, LLC v. Highland Capital Management, LP, No. 05-13-00948-CV (Dec. 4, 2015) (mem. op.) The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed, finding no enforceable contract.  The Court first reviewed the protean doctrines of judicial admissions and judicial estoppel, ultimately concluding that statements made by RBC in other litigation were not preclusive in this case, noting that RBC did not ultimately prevail in the other matter.  It then rejected Highland’s argument that a contract was formed when the parties agreed upon “price and principal,” noting that RBC’s acceptance was expressly subject to further documentation (specifically, a written trade confirmation and purchase agreement). The Court noted that, as alleged by Highland, the claimed breach involved matters that remained to be resolved in those subsequent documents.  (Another “conditional agreement” case is discussed today on sister blog 600Camp.)

While the slow season for opinions continues at the Dallas Court of Appeals, a short memorandum opinion provides a procedural lesson that could prove useful for any appellate attorney dealing with a pro se opponent. In this case, the appellant filed an affidavit of indigence with the trial court, seeking to avoid prepayment of costs under TRAP 20.1. The clerk challenged the appellant’s indigent status on September 15, and the court reporter contested the affidavit on September 17. But when multiple challenges to an affidavit of indigence are filed, the trial court still has to rule within 10 days of the first challenge. The trial court signed an order sustaining the court reporter’s challenge on October 6, well outside the 10-day period that should have run from September 15. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court had abused its discretion, reversed the order sustaining the contest to the pro se appellant’s indigence, and held that he could proceed with the appeal without advance payment of costs.

Bell v. Harris, No. 05-15-01117-CV

A group of plaintiffs collectively named as Nemaha Water Services moved to compel arbitration before FINRA. In a cross-motion, Esposito Securities moved to compel arbitration before the AAA. The trial court denied Nemaha’s motion and granted Esposito’s, sending the case to AAA arbitration. In a hybrid interlocutory appeal and mandamus proceeding, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed and sent the case to FINRA. Nemaha had signed a letter agreement in which it had agreed to pay Esposito 5% of the total consideration received in a qualifying investment or merger. The contract included a AAA arbitration provision, but the Court of Appeals held that clause was trumped by the FINRA rules, at least in this instance. The case turned on the question of whether Nemaha was a “customer” of Esposito, which would entitle it to invoke arbitration under the FINRA rules. Applying the ordinary meaning of “customer,” the Court held that Nemaha qualified even though it had not paid Esposito the contractual commission. Because Nemaha had contracted with Esposito — a member of FINRA — to purchase financial services for a fee, the Court concluded that Nemaha was entitled to invoke FINRA arbitration. The Court noted, however, that there is authority for the proposition that FINRA arbitration can be superseded by contract, although that was not the case this time.

Morford v. Esposito Sec., LLC, No. 05-14-01223-CV

Last year, we reported on the Dallas Court of Appeals’ decision to affirm the trial court’s denial of the Office of Attorney General’s plea to the jurisdiction in a Whistleblower Act case. Today, the Texas Supreme Court has reversed and rendered, holding that the whistleblower’s report to her superior at OAG was not made to “an appropriate law enforcement authority,” as required by the Whistleblower Act. The plaintiff’s pleadings therefore failed to properly invoke the Act, meaning that OAG’s sovereign immunity was not waived.

Office of the Attorney Gen. v. Weatherspoon, No. 14-0582

A guarantor ignored the efforts of a court-appointed receiver to collect on an agreed judgment and subsequent turnover orders. The debtor eventually paid the judgment, but Frost Bank sought recovery of additional attorney fees incurred in enforcing the judgment. The trial court awarded $160,000 in attorney fees and approved the receiver’s fee of $129,000. The Court of Appeals reversed as to the attorney fees, holding that fees could not be recovered based on the contractual guarantee because the bank’s claims under that instrument were merged with and extinguished by the final judgment. Nor could post-judgment attorney fees be awarded under the turnover statute because the defendant had actually paid the judgment. However, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving the receiver’s fee — calculated as 10% of the sale proceeds from the defendant’s stock — as the court had conducted a hearing and determined that the fee was fair, reasonable, and necessary.

Evans v. Frost Nat’l Bank, No. 05-12-01491

The appeal of an oil and gas dispute has led to a multi-million dollar swing in favor of the appellants. The district court had granted a $14 million summary judgment in favor of the seller of oil and gas interests located in New Mexico. The fact scenario is somewhat complex, but the essence seems to be that Three Rivers Operating Co. offered to sell its interests in five properties to MRC Permian Co. pursuant to a preferential purchase right provision in their joint operating agreement. MRC accepted that proposal, for a purchase price of just under $7 million, and further wrote that it was exercising a preferential right to purchase “one hundred percent (100%) of Three Rivers’ interest in the land comprising the Contract Area . . . .” Three Rivers responded to say that there were actually 10 properties for sale for approximately $14 million. MRC then wrote back that it was ready to move forward on Three Rivers’ original offer, but Three Rivers nevertheless concluded that MRC had agreed to buy all ten properties. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court entered judgment for Three Rivers, requiring MRC to specifically perform the $14 million deal. The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment for MRC that there was only a $7 million contract for the original five properties.

Three Rivers argued that the initial $7 million offer had been made under a mistaken interpretation of the preferential purchase right clause, and that MRC did not accept that offer in any event because its acceptance letter was actually a counteroffer to buy all of Three Rivers’ interests covered by the JOA. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that MRC did not condition its acceptance of the $7 million offer on Three Rivers’ assent to sell any additional properties. So long as it is clear that the acceptance is positive and unequivocal, a contract is formed regardless of whether the offeree makes additional requests at the same time. And when Three Rivers offered to sell all 10 of its properties, that was not an acceptance of an offer by MRC to purchase “100%” of Three Rivers’ interests. MRC had not stated the essential terms of a contract, including purchase price, nor did MRC’s letter indicate any acceptance of a prior offer by MRC. Instead, Three Rivers’ $14 million offer letter was an independent offer of its own, and MRC did not accept it in the manner specified by Three Rivers. The Court of Appeals therefore reversed the trial court’s judgment, rendered judgment for MRC on the $7 million contract, and remanded for consideration of MRC’s costs and attorney fees.

MRC Permian Co. v. Three Rivers Operating Co., No. 05-14-00353-CV

A short opinion helps to illustrate the limited reach of an appellate court’s authority over the cases before it. On interlocutory appeal, both litigants agreed that the trial court should have vacated an order appointing a receiver in Texas to serve ancillary to a primary receivership in Minnesota. But in addition to vacting the order appointing the receiver, the appellant also wanted the Court of Appeals to undo all the receiver’s actions. That was beyond the appellate court’s powers however. Pointing to TRAP 43.2, the Court held that it could affirm, modify, reverse and render, reverse and remand, vacate, or dismiss — none of which permitted the Court to grant the additional relief sought by the appellant.

Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. LP v. Verde Minerals, LLC, No. 05-15-00014-CV

The Dallas Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court order denying a motion to compel arbitration. The arbitration clause was contained in a contract between a temporary employee and his employment agency, which gave both parties the right to “elect mandatory, binding arbitration for any claim, dispute, or controversy between you, and our clients or us” [sic]. The plaintiff claimed that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to substantive unconscionability, lack of consideration, and lack of essential terms. The Court held that nothing in the arbitration agreement demonstrated that the specific manner of arbitration was a material consideration to the parties, noting that the FAA specifically contemplates circumstances in which the parties have not provided for a method of appointment for an arbitrator. The Court also held that the consideration for the overall contract was sufficient to support the arbitration clause as well. Finally, the Court held that the provision was not substantively unconscionable despite its inclusion of a waiver of the right “to take any legal action” because it was not clear that potentially-unconscionable waiver was actually aimed at waiving substantive claims instead of just waiving the right to do so in court instead of arbitration.

Stride Staffing v. Holloway, No. 05-14-00811-CV

A nasty Zillow review of a real estate agent prompted a defamation lawsuit, which these days pretty much inevitably leads to a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act. In this instance, the agent had listed the seller’s house as “temporarily off market” instead of “active.” The Collin County trial court denied the seller’s motion to dismiss, but the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed. The seller’s claim that the agent had listed the house as being off market for “over 100 days” was incorrect, but the Court held that the falsity of that statement was immaterial because the agent had actually listed the property that was for 64 days instead. The plaintiffs also failed to establish that listing the house as off market was in accordance with the seller’s instructions, as her complaint that she “did not want her property shown” was not the equivalent of asking it to be listed as “temporarily off market.” Finally, the plaintiffs could not base their defamation case on the seller’s statement that the agent was “incompetent, mentally unstable, or raging from rejection” because those were non-actionable statements of opinion. The Court therefore rendered judgment for the defendant and remanded for a determination of her costs and recoverable attorney fees.

Ruder v. Jordan, No. 05-14-01265-CV

In this case involving corporate infighting, the defendant filed a third-party claim against Troy Brown.  Mr. Brown filed a special appearance asserting that the court did not have personal jurisdiction, which the trial court denied.  Mr. Brown appealed.

The Court of Appeals reversed, determining that Brown did not have minimum contacts with Texas such that he was subject to personal jurisdiction here.  The Court specifically found that several emails Brown sent to people in Texas did not “constitute a contact demonstrating purposeful availment.”

Brown v. Pennington

Former GOP Senate candidate Chris Mapp sued the Dallas Morning News for defamation after it published an editorial stating Mapp had told the editorial board “that ranchers should be allowed to shoot on sight anyone illegally crossing the border on their land, referring to such people as ‘wetbacks,’ and called the president a ‘socialist son of a bitch.'” Mapp claimed that the “shoot on sight” comment had been taken out of context because he had actually said ranchers should be permitted to shoot when they were in “fear for their life” or in defense of property, the same as anybody else. The News filed a motion to dismiss under the TCPA, but the 30-day statutory period after the hearing passed without a ruling by the trial court. That caused the motion to be overruled by operation of law, and the newspaper perfected an interlocutory appeal. The trial court then issued an order granting the motion to dismiss, albeit outside the prescribed time period.

This raised two questions for the Dallas Court of Appeals: What was the effect of the late-issued dismissal order, and should the case have been dismissed on the merits in any event? As to the first question, the Court held that the untimely dismissal order was a nullity. On the merits, the Court held that Mapp (who was a public figure) had not met his prima facie burden of showing that the newspaper had published the allegedly defamatory statements with constitutional malice. Paraphrasing or deliberately altering another person’s words does not establish actual malice unless there is evidence the defendant misinterpreted the remarks on purpose or in circumstances so improbable that the mistake could only have been recklessly. The Court concluded that the newspaper’s paraphrase of the statements Mapp had made in his tape-recorded interview was a rational interpretation of what he had said, and Mapp had not submitted any evidence to contradict the reporter’s affidavit explaining his subjective intent. The Court of Appeals therefore concluded that the trial court had erred by allowing the motion to dismiss to be overruled by operation of law, rendered judgment that Mapp’s case be dismised, and remanded to the trial court for a determination of the DMN’s costs, fees, and other recoverable expenses.

The Dallas Morning News, Inc. v. Mapp, No. 05-14-00848-CV

After obtaining a judgment against the guarantor of a $250,000 debt, plaintiff Elexis Rice sought a turnover order for certain intangible items of property, including internet domain names and website registrations using the name “cre8stone.” Cre8 International — which was not the judgment debtor — appeared in court to contest the turnover, contending that the domains were its own property. The trial court concluded otherwise, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that aspect of the turnover order. Although a trial court cannot ordinarily adjudicate third parties’ ownership rights in a turnover proceeding, the appearance of that third party in court rendered it subject to the trial court’s ruling on the matter. However, Cre8 managed to retain its email addresses and telephone number, as there was no evidence in the record showing that they were actually owed by the judgment debtor.

Cre8 Int’l, LLC v. Rice, No. 05-14-00377-CV

A 1999 divorce decree required Molly Brizendine to pay a $14,477 debt the she and her ex-husband owed to Texans Credit Union. In 2013, Texans sued Richard Brizendine for the balance of the outstanding line of credit. The county court at law granted judgment for the ex-husband, but the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed and rendered. Although it was Molly who had continued to take advances on the line of credit long after the divorce was final, Richard was still liable for the debt because he had signed the original contract as a co-borrower. The Court held that it was “well-settled that a court in a divorce action has no power to disturb rights that creditors lawfully hold against the parties.”

Texans Credit Union v. Brizendine, No. 05-13-01422-CV

Wells Fargo obtained a judgment against Charles Paschall and then sought to collect by garnishing an investment account Paschall held at U.S. Trust. U.S. Trust opposed the garnishment, asserting that the funds it held were subject to a properly perfected security interest held by Inwood National Bank. Inwood then intervened to protect its lien interest in the account. The trial court ultimately ruled that Wells Fargo’s judgment lien trumped Inwood’s security interest and awarded the funds to Wells.

Inwood appealed. The issue before the Dallas Court of Appeals was whether Inwood lost its priority over Wells Fargo by executing a new promissory note with Paschall several months after Wells Fargo recorded its judgment lien. Under Texas law, if this new obligation were considered an “advance” as opposed to a renewal or extension of an existing indebtedness, then Inwood would lose its priority. Relying on several cases interpreting the UCC, the Court determined that the new promissory note was not an advance, reversed the trial court’s ruling, and held that Wells Fargo was not entitled to garnish the funds.

Inwood Nat’l Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

The owners of a company that owned and operated three ASI Gymnastics centers attempted to effectuate a business divorce via a Rule 11 agreement calling for the appointment of a panel of appraisers. A dispute ensued over how the appraisers were to do their work, and that led the parties back to the courthouse to sort out the terms and enforceability of the Rule 11. The trial court ruled that the agreement was valid, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. While the plaintiffs argued that the agreement lacked essential terms as to the interest rate and payment period for the buyout, the Court of Appeals held that the agreement itself (represented in a series of email exchanges between the attorneys) stated that those terms were not the “heart of the proposal,” and the rest of the terms were indeed agreed upon. (Notably, the buyout funds were actually tendered as a lump sum, rendering the interest rate and payment terms moot.) The Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the Rule 11 was unenforceable because it was not manually signed, ruling that they had not timely objected that the electronic signature blocks on the emails were invalid as signatures for a Rule 11 agreement. However, the Court reversed and rendered an award of attorney fees in favor of the defendants, concluding that the dispute was already before the trial court when the defendants filed a declaratory judgment counterclaim that they had validly complied with the Rule 11 agreement.

Crews v. DKASI Corp., No. 05-14-00544-CV

By local ordinance, the City of Plano permits the owner of a billboard that pre-existed the city’s current territorial limits to repair the sign if it becomes “dilapidated and deteriorated.” The owners of one such sign near Highway 75 sued the city after their request to repair the sign after the sign and all but one of its five supporting beams were blown over in a storm. The city refused, arguing that the sign was “destroyed,” not dilapidated and deteriorated. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that the ordinance did not contain the word “destroyed,” and that its definition of “dilapidated and deteriorated” included broken support members. The Court ruled against the sign owners on their temporary regulatory taking claim, however, citing recent Texas Supreme Court authority that the pendency of a civil-enforcement procedure, by itself, does not give rise to a taking.

CPM Trust v. City of Plano, No. 05-14-00104-CV

In this insurance coverage case, the Court of Appeals construed the “business risk exclusion” to preclude coverage for water damage to a townhome complex that the insured was building.  A business risk exclusion is a typical provision in commercial general liability insurance policies that is used to exclude coverage for “certain risks relating to the repair or replacement of the insured’s faulty work or products or defects in the insured’s work or product itself.”  The reason behind including such exclusion is simple:  the insured should be able to control the quality of the goods and services it supplies.  In this case, the Court found that the exclusion precluded coverage because the evidence established that property damage at issue occurred during the construction of the townhome complex.

Dallas Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Calitex Corp.

Connie Sigel used a website to book an apartment in Paris (the one in France) for a seven-night vacation. During that stay, an intruder with keys to both the apartment and its safe stole most of Sigel’s possessions. Sigel sued the booking agency on multiple contract and tort claims. The trial court denied My Vacation Europe’s special appearance, but the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed and rendered. The Court held that Sigel’s act of accessing MVE’s website and renting an apartment while she was located in Dallas did not constitute a purposeful availment of Texas by MVE, and there was no evidence that MVE specifically targeted Texas residents for its services. The Court of Appeals also held that there could be no specific jurisdiction in Texas because the claims all arose from a burglary that occurred in France, meaning that the relationship between Texas and the operative facts of the litigation was too tenuous to support jurisdiction.

My Vacation Europe, Inc. v. Sigel, No. 05-14-00435-CV

Update: Threepeat. The dream is alive.

A Highland Park property dispute has resulted in a 30-page memorandum opinion affirming the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that the defendants have title to a strip of land adjacent to their home, but also reversing an attorney fee award of $40,670 against the plaintiff, Armstrong DLO Properties. ADLO filed suit, seeking to establish that (among very many other things) a 1949 warranty deed in the defendants’ chain of title was invalid, which would make the frontage of ADLO’s lot approximately 155 feet wide.

During the summary judgment hearing, the trial court revealed that it had sua sponte discovered that ADLO’s owner had successfully sued the estate of his father seeking reformation to the deed, establishing that the frontage was only 140 feet wide. The court orally stated that it would take judicial notice of that judgment, describing it as an issue of “estoppel.” The court subsequently granted summary judgment for the defendants without identifying the grounds for its ruling. The Court of Appeals rejected ADLO’s claim that the district court had improperly relied on matters outside the record in granting the summary judgment, as there was nothing in the written summary judgment order indicating that the court had actually granted summary judgment on the basis of the prior judgment. Because the grounds otherwise presented in the defendants’ motion were sufficient to justify summary judgment, the Court affirmed it. However, the Court reversed as to the award of attorney fees, holding that fees were not recoverable under the Declaratory Judgments Act because the issue was title to the property, not the location of the boundary between properties. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 37.004(c).

Armstrong DLO Props., LLC v. Furniss, No. 05-13-01581-CV

Update: The pressure is now on a for a three-peat next week.

The Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court’s judgment awarding approximately $46,000 in attorney fees in a denial of coverage dispute. The case was brought by a homebuyer who sued his builders for a number of defects.  The buyer obtained a judgment against the builders in arbitration. The builders had tendered the buyer’s claim to their insurer, Oklahoma Surety Co., but OSC denied coverage for both the defense of the case and ultimate liability. After arbitration, the builders assigned their coverage claim to the buyer, who then sued OSC for the builders’ defense costs and for indemnification under the policy. The trial court ruled that OSC had a duty to the defend the case, but had no duty to indemnify for damages. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that an exclusion for property damage to “your work” applied under the “eight corners” rule, thereby barring both coverage and the duty to defend.

Oklahoma Surety Co. v. Novielo, No. 05-13-01546-CV

In a dispute between former business partners, the plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract, alleging that the defendant first agreed to reimburse him for certain expenses totaling $75,000, and then, second, when he refused to pay, promised the plaintiff that he would give him a check for $75,000 instead.  The jury found that the defendant breached both contracts and awarded the plaintiff $75,000 for each breach (for a total of $150,000).  Because that amounted to a double recovery, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed and limited the plaintiff to one recovery of $75,000 for breach of contract.

Kim v. Pak

Legacy Hillcrest Investments is seeking to develop a pair of lots just west of the SMU law School and north of of a single family district. After a series of proposals and counterproposals, Legacy sought a permit for to build a three-story parking garage. The community development staff approved the application, but the Board of Adjustment denied it. That led Legacy to file for a writ of mandamus, which the district court granted. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed. The city’s zoning ordinance provided that only surface parking lots could be located “adjacent to” a single-family district. The Court held that the ordinance prohibited a parking garage because Legacy’s lots were across the street from the single-family district, making them “adjacent” to one another under the plain meaning of the term.

Bd. of Adjustment v. Legacy Hillcrest Invests., LP, No. 05-13-01128-CV

The day before trial, the attorney for the defendant in a car wreck case stipulated to her client’s liability. The next day, the plaintiff moved for sanctions under Rules 13 and 215, based on the allegedly late stipulation. After securing a $44,591 jury verdict, the plaintiff re-urged the sanctions issue, which the trial court granted in the form of a $5,000 award of attorney fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict, but reversed and rendered on the sanctions. The Court held that the sanctions could not be justified for discovery abuse under Rule 215 because that rule requires a party who is aware of possible discovery abuse to obtain a ruling prior to trial. As to Rule 13, that rule requires particularized findings of good cause, which were not included in the trial court’s judgment here.

Hernandez v. Hernandez, No. 05-13-01219-CV

In this habeas corpus proceeding, Charles Miller challenged the trial court’s decision to incarcerate him for contempt.  Mr. Miller had failed to produce certain documents required by court order, leading to the contempt finding and his confinement.  Specifically, the trial court found Miller guilty of constructive contempt, which is contemptuous conduct outside the presence of the court.  Miller argued that he was not given proper notice of the contempt charge, and the Court of Appeals agreed, because in cases involving conduct outside the presence of the court, “due process requires that the alleged contemnor receive full and unambiguous notification of the accusation of any contempt and a reasonable opportunity to defend the charges or explain the conduct.”  Because Miller was not afforded that opportunity, the Court granted him habeas corpus relief.

In re Miller

During the course of this case, the defendant made numerous changes to his deposition testimony post hoc.  Ultimately, it was discovered that the defendant’s counsel had drafted the changes and told their client to adopt them.  The trial court judge, outraged at this behavior, forced the defendant to disclose emails reflecting that conduct (on the theory that they fell under the crime/fraud exception to attorney-client privilege).  Not surprisingly, the plaintiff had a field day attacking the defendant’s credibility at trial, leading to a multi-million dollar verdict in its favor, including substantial punitive damages.

After trial the plaintiff moved for sanctions based on the plaintiff’s conduct, which the trial court awarded.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, because the motion for sanctions should have been brought before trial and because, even under the trial court’s inherent power to sanction, the Court concluded that allowing the plaintiff’s counsel to use emails between the defendant and his counsel for cross examination was “enough to make the point” and further sanctions were excessive.

Cherry Petersen Landry Albert LLP v. Cruz

For the second time this month, the Court of Appeals has decided that Oncor Electric Delivery Company was not responsible for causing a fire that damaged a plaintiff’s property. In this instance, Schepp’s Dairy alleged that Oncor’s negligence led to a fire starting with a transformer at Schepp’s facility. At trial, three different electrical engineering experts variously testified that the fire was caused on either Schepp’s side or Oncor’s side of the transformer. The jury specifically rejected the conclusions of two of those experts, leaving only one expert for Schepp’s. In a highly fact-specific opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the last expert’s opinion was unreliable. Among other problems, the witness had failed to exclude other possible causes of the fire, and he had only testified as to Oncor’s negligent maintenance of the transformer without opining as to what was the direct cause of the fire. Without that testimony, Schepp’s had no evidence of causation, and the judgment against Schepp’s was therefore reversed.

Oncor Elec. Deliv. Co. LLC v. So. Foods Gp. LLC, No. 05-12-01223-CV

In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals ruled that if a court determines that a mechanic’s lienholder has a perfected statutory mechanic’s lien and is entitled to recover damages for unpaid labor and materials, the court must issue a judgment of foreclosure and order the sale of the property.

In the specific case in front of the Court, the lienholder sought to foreclose on its lien, but the trial court refused to order a foreclosure, noting that the language of the statute (Texas Property Code 53.154) provides that mechanic’s liens “may be foreclosed only on judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.”  The Court of Appeals, reversing the trial court’s decision, noted that the use of the passive voice implied a meaning that mechanic’s liens may be enforced by the lienholder, thus giving the lienholder–not the court–the discretion.

Crawford Servs., Inc. v. Skillman Int’l Firm LLC

Last December, the Court of Appeals issued an interim opinion vacating a trial court order that almost quadrupled the supersedeas amount to be paid by TierOne Converged Networks during the appeal of a judgment evicting it and its equipment from the water towers of Lavon Water Supply Corp. Now, the Court has reversed and rendered judgment in favor of TierOne on the merits of the forcible detainer case. The Court agreed with TierOne that it had validly exercised its contractual option to renew the lease of the property for an additional five-year term. Because the lease did not require notice of any renewal, TierOne’s continued occupation of the property and payment of the monthly rent following the expiration of the initial term was sufficient to constitute an election to renew.

TierOne Converged Networks v. Lavon Water Supply Corp., No. 05-13-00370-CV

A former Halliburton employee who had worked at the company designing and manufacturing wellbore plugs left and formed his own company that designed and manufactured wellbore plugs.  Halliburton sued the former employee and his company.  Ultimately, a jury found in Halliburton’s favor, awarding it damages, and the trial court entered an injunction barring the former employee from using Halliburton’s trade secrets for eighteen months.

Not satisfied, Halliburton appealed, seeking a permanent injunction.  The Court of Appeals sided with Halliburton, holding that the trial court erred by refusing to enter a permanent injunction because the former employee failed to show that anything less than a perpetual injunction would protect Halliburton’s rights and “remove the competitive advantage obtained through the misappropriation.”  Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Axis Tech. LLC, 444 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2014, no pet.)

In this commercial paper case, Jason Kang signed several checks made out to various businesses and drawn on the bank account of his business, Ever Construction.  Unfortunately, the checks ended up the hands of wrongdoer Kwan Sup Choi, who was not the named payee on the checks but took and cashed them at Lee’s Check Cashing.  When Kang found out that his intended payees did not receive their money, Lee’s Check Cashing was forced to bear the loss and pay them.

Lee’s, however, blamed Kang for the forgery and sued him and Ever Construction under theories of negligence and fraud.  After a bench trial, the trial court awarded judgment in favor of Lee’s, and Kang and Ever Construction appealed.  The Court of Appeals reversed, holding, among other things, that Kang and Ever Construction had no duty to ensure that the checks it wrote were only presented to third parties for payment by persons who were authorized to cash them.

Ever Constr. Corp. v. Su

Hurricane Ike damaged property owned by Optimum Deerbrook LLC. Optimum’s lender, ViewPoint Bank, was a loss payee on Optimum’s property insurance policy with Allied Property & Casualty. Allied paid the claim, issuing checks jointly to Optimum and ViewPoint, but Optimum endorsed and deposited the checks in its own account. As a result, ViewPoint never received any of the insurance funds. ViewPoint sued Allied for breach of the insurance contract and a claim under article 3 of the UCC. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Citing the Texas Supreme Court’s recent decision in McAllen Hospitals, LP v. State Farm, the Court held that the insurer had not fulfilled its payment obligation by delivering the checks only to the insured, and that delivery to both payees is required because neither of them, acting alone, could enforce or negotiate the instrument. The Court also held that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of the bank on its UCC claim because the drawer of a check is not discharged from its obligation when the check is issued to nonalternative copayees and is paid without one of their necessary endorsements. However, the Court held that the bank’s attorney fees affidavit was not sufficiently detailed to support summary judgment and remanded the case for further consideration of an award of attorney fees.

ViewPoint Bank v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 05-12-01370-CV

In this interlocutory appeal of a motion to compel arbitration, the Court held that the broad arbitration provision at issue (“[a]ny dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to [the agreement] or breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof” must be arbitrated) required the trial court to grant the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Moreover, because the provision itself stated that “the determination of the scope or applicability of this Agreement to arbitrate” must be determined by an arbitrator, the Court found that the responsibility for establishing whether the provision even applies rests with the arbitration proceeding.

Seven Hills Commercial LLC v. Mirabal Custom Homes, Inc.

In this garnishment action, the Court of Appeals permitted the appellant, as lessor, to recover past due rent under a commercial lease against a sub-lessee.  Among many other issues, the Court rejected the appellee’s argument that the sub-lease was invalid because it was obtained without the landlord’s consent, as required by the lease.  On this point, the court held that “this limitation is for the benefit of the landlord” and that sub-lessee “cannot take advantage of their own wrongs.”

Tenet Health Sys. Hosps. Dallas Inc. v. N. Tex. Hosp. Physicians Gp. P.A.

The appellant (brother to appellee) claimed the probate court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.  Appellee asserted that the appellant’s individual assistance to the parties’ quadriplegic mother in a probate matter in 2008 (the appellant’s only contact with Texas) required the court to exercise jurisdiction over her brother.  The Court held, however, that at the time he assisted his mother in the prior lawsuit, the appellant was not serving as trustee of the Trust at issue in the present lawsuit, and thus his contact with the state was in a separate, individual capacity.

Stauffer v. Nicholson

The only issue before the Court in this case was whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  The plaintiffs signed up to be Independent Representatives (apparently, a type of sales rep) for the defendants.  As part of the online application process, plaintiffs clicked a box confirming that they agreed to the defendant’s terms and conditions.  Those terms and conditions contained a provision providing that any dispute between the parties would be resolved by binding arbitration.

It turns out that the Court recently upheld the exact same arbitration provision in a case against the same defendants.  Consequently, without much substantive analysis, the Court referenced its prior opinion and reversed the trial court, holding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties.

Momentis U.S. Corp. v. Perissos Holdings Inc.

The developer of a condominium project in Fort Worth sued the general contractor it had hired to construct a rooftop pool and deck. Inevitably, the general filed third party claims and cross-claims against various other participants, including engineers and subcontractors, seemingly all of whom filed claims, cross-claims, and counterclaims against everyone else. Two of the defendants moved to dismiss some of third party claims on the basis that the claimants had not complied with the certificate of merit requirement for suits against licensed architects, engineers, and surveyors.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 152.002. Applying recent authority from the Texas Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals held that a certificate of merit is only required to initiate suit, not for defendants or third-party defendants who assert claims for relief within a lawsuit. However, the Court also ordered the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ fifth amended petition as to one of the two defendants on the basis that they had failed to attach a certificate of merit to the amended petition before the deadline.

Hydrotech Engineering, Inc. v. OMP Dev., LLC, No. 05-13-00713-CV

Mr. and Mrs. Carpenter hired the law firm of Shaw & Lemon to represent them in a lawsuit against Holmes Builders.  The Carpenters agreed to pay Shaw & Lemon 40% of any recovery.  Shaw & Lemon, in turn, hired attorney Daniel Hagood to assist with the case.  In exchange for Mr. Hagood’s assistance, Shaw & Lemon agreed orally to pay him 25% of their 40% contingency fee.

Ultimately, the Carpenters obtained a judgment against Holmes for more than $2 million.  Rather than pay the judgment, however, Holmes filed for bankruptcy protection.  By this time, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Lemon had experienced a falling out and had parted ways (and sued each other).  Mr. Lemon, on his own, was then retained by the bankruptcy trustee to recover assets for Holmes’ bankruptcy estate, for which he would receive 34% of any assets recovered.  Significantly, as part of this arrangement, Mr. Lemon, on behalf of himself and his firm, waived any right to payment from the Carpenters.

It turns out that Mr. Lemon was fairly successful at recovering assets for the estate, as he recovered over $1 million.  As a result, the Carpenters received nearly $600,000 for their claim.  Once the Carpenters were paid, Mr. Hagood sought his cut of their recovery based on the agreement he had with Lemon and Shaw.

In this opinion, the Court of Appeals addressed several issues, one of which was whether Hagood had a valid breach of contract claim against Lemon.  Lemon argued that since neither he nor his now-defunct firm received any payment from the Carpenters, Hagood had no claim.  The Court rejected that argument, noting that “one who prevents or makes impossible the performance of a condition precedent upon which his liability under a contract is made to depend cannot avail himself of its nonperformance.”  Here, the Court noted that Lemon’s waiver of his firm’s right to recover from the Carpenters made impossible the performance of the condition precedent to Lemon’s liability under the agreement with Hagood, because “[a] duty to cooperate is implied in every contract in which cooperation is necessary for performance of the contract.”

Lemon v. Hagood

Among several issues on appeal in this dispute between a commercial landlord and tenant, the Court of Appeals considered whether the defendant could recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to the declaratory judgments act.  After the plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract for failing to construct ramps in compliance with the ADA, the defendant responded by requesting a declaratory judgment that he had no duty to pay for the ramps.  Because the defendant’s counsel admitted at trial that the issues raised in his declaratory judgment action would be resolved by the plaintiff’s breach of contract lawsuit, the court rejected the defendant’s attempt to recover attorneys’ fees, noting the rule that “a party cannot use the declaratory judgments act merely as a vehicle to obtain otherwise impermissible attorney’s fees.”

Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. v. McGonagle

In this dispute between neighbors over a poorly placed fence, the victorious neighbors appealed the trial court’s decision denying them their court costs.  The case had already been up to the Court of Appeals once before, where the Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case “for entry of judgment consistent with our opinion and for consideration of the [successful neighbors’] request for attorney’s fees.”  On remand, the trial court refused to award court costs because the mandate from the Court of Appeals only referenced attorneys’ fees and made no mention of court costs.

The Court of Appeals again reversed the trial court, holding that the prevailing neighbors were entitled to recover their trial court costs pursuant to Rule 131 of the rules of civil procedure.  Although court costs were not specifically mentioned in the Court’s previous mandate, “the trial court retains its constitutional jurisdiction to perform duties collateral to and consistent with” that mandate.

Blaylock v. Holland

In this forcible detainer action, the trial court dismissed American Homes 4 Rent’s (AH4R) attempt to evict the defendant because AH4R could not prove that it had title to the property at issue.  Specifically, the trial court based its dismissal on the defendant’s argument that she had filed bankruptcy the day before AH4R bought the property and thus its purchase was void because it had violated the automatic stay.  The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal, because to prevail in a forcible detainer action, “a plaintiff is not required to prove title, but is only required to show sufficient evidence of ownership to demonstrate a superior right to immediate possession.”

American Homes 4 Rent Props. One LLC v. Ibarra

After a dispute arose between the owner of an apartment complex and the contractor hired to renovate it, the owner sent the contractor checks totaling more than $8,000 with a letter stating that it was “full and final payment” for all amounts owed. The contractor cashed the check, but subsequently filed a lien and sought to recover an additional $14,000 in unpaid invoices. The trial court granted judgment for the defendant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Although the contractor’s owner testified that he had not “knowingly and affirmatively” agree to an accord and satisfaction, the trial judge was entitled to disregard that evidence as not believable. Luckily, however, the apartment owner conceded that the $14,000 awarded on its own counterclaim was erroneous, and so the Court of Appeals vacated and rendered that portion of the judgment, with a remand for further consideration of the attendant attorney fees.

Contemporary Contractors v. Centerpoint Apt. Ltd., No. 05-13-00614-CV

In this contract dispute, the Court of Appeals applied the standard set forth by the Texas Supreme Court in Hathaway v. General Mills, Inc., 711 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. 1986), to the modification of an at will sales representative agreement.  In Hathaway, the Supreme Court stated that “to prove a modification of an at will employment contract, the party asserting the modification must prove two things: (1) notice of the change; and (2) acceptance of the change.”  The notice must be unequivocal and, if so, continued employment constitutes acceptance of the change.  The Court found in this case that, although the plaintiff “unequivocally denied” agreeing to or negotiating any modifications to his commission, the defendants letter outlining the modification contained no equivocation and there was no dispute that the plaintiff continued working.

Hampden Corp. v. Remark, Inc.

Television reporter Brett Shipp was sued for defamation by Dr. Richard Malouf, founder of the All Smiles Dental Center. Shipp broadcast a story on allegations of Medicaid fraud involving Malouf, and closed by reporting that Malouf “has yet to comment on the allegations but filed for bankruptcy and is in the process of divesting his once impressive empire.” Malouf alleged that statement was defamatory because it was All Smiles Dental Center that filed for bankruptcy, not Malouf personally. Shipp filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The trial court denied both the plea and the motion, and Shipp took the matters up on interlocutory review.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, but reversed and rendered based on on the TCPA. The plea to the jurisdiction claimed that the county court at law was without jurisdiction because it would deny Shipp the right to a 12-person jury. The Court quickly disposed of that issue, citing its own case law establishing that the size of the available jury does not negate subject matter jurisdiction that has otherwise been properly conferred on a court. As to the TCPA, the Court held that Shipp had met his initial burden of showing that the lawsuit arose out of his exercise of the right to free speech because the subject matter of his report as a whole — not just the statement about the bankruptcy filing — was made in connection with a matter of public concern. That shifted the burden to Malouf to come forward with a prima facie case, based on “clear and specific evidence,” for each element of his defamation claim. Malouf argued that a false accusation of personal bankruptcy was defamation per se, which would have given rise to a presumption of damages. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that it was not defamation per se because it did not “touch Malouf in a way that is harmful to one engaged in the profession of dentistry.” Without any other clear and specific evidence of damages, the Court held that the motion to dismiss under the TCPA should have been granted.

Shipp v. Malouf, No. 05-13-01080-CV

An employer sued its former employee for misappropriating funds from the company, alleging multiple causes of action, including breach of contract, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of the employer on all counts and awarded economic and punitive damages.  The trial court also awarded the employer attorneys’ fees based on its breach of contract claim.

On appeal, among other things, the employee argued that the trial court’s damages award violated the one-satisfaction rule, which limits a plaintiff who suffers a single injury to damages based on only one cause of action.  The Court of Appeals agreed, noting that “when a defendant’s acts result in a single injury and the jury returns favorable findings on two or more theories of liability, the plaintiff has the right to a judgment on the theory entitling him to the greatest or most favorable relief.”  Consequently, the Court set aside the attorneys’ fees and statutory damages awarded by the trial court, and awarded the employer economic and exemplary damages under its breach of fiduciary duty claim (which does not provide for the recovery of attorneys’ fees) because that result gave the employer its largest recovery.

McCullough v. Scarbrough, Medlin & Assocs.

Trinity Structural Towers, Inc. sued two related companies: 1) Suzlon Wind Energy Corporation (Suzlon Wind), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas, and 2) Suzlon Energy Company (Suzlon India), Suzlon Wind’s India-based parent company.  Trinity sued both defendants for breach of contract and several related claims.  Suzlon India filed a special appearance, arguing that it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas, which the trial court denied.

On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and dismissed Suzlon India from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Even though one of Suzlon India’s employees signed the contract at issue, the evidence was clear that the contract was between Trinity and Suzlon Wind, not Suzlon India.  The Court also rejected Trinity’s argument that Suzlon India was acting as Suzlon Wind’s agent, noting that Trinity did not meet its burden under Texas law to prove an agency relationship.

Suzlon Energy Ltd. v. Trinity Structural Towers Inc.

The Texas Citizens Participation Act continues to be a fruitful source of appellate activity. In this instance, the Court of Appeals has reversed the trial court’s order denying a motion to dismiss in a case arising out of a bad review on Angie’s List. Barbara Young hired Perennial Properties to construct an outdoor living space at her home, but Young claimed that Perennial failed to perform its work as required. McKinney Lumber Company then filed a lien against Young’s property for $9,779 in lumber that Perennial had failed to pay for. After the lumber company sued everyone involved, Young wrote up her experience in an online review, giving Perennial an overall grade of “F” and describing Perennial’s owners as incompetent crooks. Those owners then intervened in the lawsuit in order to sue Young and her attorney for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Court of Appeals first held that Young had met her initial burden of showing that the online review was an exercise of her right to free speech because it was a communication made to the public in connection with a good, product, or service. That brought it within the scope of the TCPA and shifted the burden to Perennial’s owners to establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each element of their claims. That they failed to do, according to the Court of Appeals. The defamation claim failed because the owners had not provided any evidence that the allegedly false statements were defamatory (as opposed to non-actionable opinions) or that Young had been negligent in making them. The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim failed because that cause of action is only a “gap-filler” tort, and there were no different or distinguishing facts from the defamation claim to permit it to proceed separately. The Court of Appeals therefore dismissed both claims and remanded the case for further proceedings under the TCPA, presumably to consider an award of attorney fees to Young.

Young v. Krantz, No. 05-13-00853-CV

The Court of Appeals has conditionally granted mandamus relief in a divorce proceeding to vacate an order requiring a trustee to withhold distributions from the husband and pay them instead to the wife. The trust instrument included a spendthrift provision, which prevents creditors from claiming distributable money or property from the trust, as well as any assignment of a beneficiary’s interest in the trust’s distributions. The Court of Appeals held that the spendthrift provision was enforceable, and that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the trustee to make distributions in circumvention of the trust’s terms. Because the trustee was a non-party to the divorce proceeding, it also had no adequate remedy at law, thereby justifying the grant of mandamus relief.

In re BancourpSouth Bank, No. 05-14-00294-CV

The Court of Appeals has reversed and rendered a trial court judgment in favor of the victim of a serious softball injury. Coleman and Dunagan were teammates on a slow-pitch softball team, but Coleman also had experience as a high school baseball player. While warming up to pitch the first game of the season, Coleman threw a couple of overhand curveballs to Dunagan at the catcher’s position, followed by an overhand fastball that smashed Dunagan in the mouth and caused significant injury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on his claim for ordinary negligence, also finding that Coleman’s conduct had been reckless.

Citing its own precedent in Connell v. Payne, 814 S.W.2d 486 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1991, writ denied), the Court of Appeals held that a showing of mere negligence was insufficient for an injury occurring as a result of participation in a sports activity — instead, the defendant must have acted recklessly or intentionally. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston has adopted a nominally different standard for sports-related liability, holding that there is no negligence duty if the risk is one that is inherent to the sport, but that non-inherent risks are still subject to the duty of ordinary care. See Chrismon v. Brown, 246 S.W.3d 102 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.).  However, the Court here did not view the two cases as establishing fundamentally different standards. Since being struck by a thrown ball is an inherent risk of the sport of softball, simple negligence alone could not justify a judgment for the plaintiff. And while the trial court had submitted the issue of recklessness to the jury, the Court of Appeals held that there was legally insufficient evidence to support that finding. As the Court noted, “inaccuracy is to be expected in every sport,” and nothing in the record showed that Coleman was aware his fastball created an unreasonable risk of harm that was substantially greater than mere negligence.

Given the novelty of the issue and the possibly different standards adopted by the intermediate appellate courts, this case could be a good candidate for review by the Texas Supreme Court. If the plaintiff takes it up to that Court, 600 Commerce will keep an eye on it.

Dunagan v. Coleman, No. 05-12-00171-CV

A habeas corpus case arising out of an underlying divorce proceeding helps to illustrate the limits of a court’s authority to imprison a litigant for contempt. The trial court ordered the wife to pay her former husband $40,000 secured by a lien on a residence awarded to her in the divorce, to be paid six months after the decree. After that date came and went without payment, the husband moved for contempt, and the trial court sentenced her to confinement in the Hunt County jail until she tendered payment. The Court of Appeals ordered her to be released, citing the Texas Constitution’s provision that “No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.” Tex. Const. art I, §18. Although the trial court could have jailed the wife for failing to comply with a court order to turn over specified property or funds (e.g., “the $40,000 in Wife’s savings account”), that authority did not extend to the failure to pay a pure debt to the other spouse. The Court therefore granted habeas corpus and ordered that the wife be unconditionally released.

In re Kinney, No. 05-14-00159-CV

The Texas Whistleblower Act prohibits a governmental entity from taking an adverse personnel action against an employee who in good faith reports a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority. Tex. Gov’t Code § 554.002(a). Those elements are jurisdictional, and a plaintiff who fails to adequately plead facts supporting the claim can have his claim dismissed. The Court of Appeals did just that in an appeal from a $400,000 judgment against the Dallas Independent School District. The plaintiff alleged that he had been terminated for reporting that his supervisor had directed him to perform three gas tests in a single day, which he claimed was unsafe. But the plaintiff’s petition did not allege that any actual violation of law had taken place, just that he had been pressured to do something that might be unsafe. As a result, the employee failed to state a claim in his petition, and the trial court therefore had no jurisdiction over his claim.

Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Watson, No. 05-12-00254-CV

In KingVision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Dallas County, the Court affirmed the county’s plea to the jurisdiction because a statute only authorized suit against a constable and his sureties for failing to execute on the plaintiff’s judgment.  And in City of Sachse v. Wood, the Court reversed the trial court’s denial of a plea to the jurisdiction, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish a violation of the Whistleblower Act because the he reported the alleged misconduct to fire department personnel, not an “appropriate law enforcement authority.”

Benica Brown’s former employer, Digital Intelligence Systems (“DIS”) sued her in Dallas county, where she was employed in DIS’s Dallas office, even though Brown’s employment agreement with DIS  (which DIS drafted) specified Virginia as the exclusive forum to resolve any disputes between the parties.  The Court conditionally granted mandamus relief, holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to dismiss the action based on the forum selection clause in the employment agreement.  The Court specifically rejected DIS’s argument that Virginia would be an inconvenient forum because DIS “certainly could have foreseen that it would be required to litigate against Brown in Virginia, especially given that it drafted the employment agreement containing that requirement and required Brown to sign it.”

In re Brown

Among other claims, the Olmsteads sued the Goldmans for breach of contract to purchase residential real estate.   The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Olmsteads and awarded them damages and attorney fees; the Goldmans appealed.  The Court of Appeals partially reversed, holding that the Olmsteads take nothing on their claims and remanded the issue of attorneys’ fees.  The Court found that the trial court erred by awarding the Olmsteads damages based on the carrying costs of the house after the Goldmans breached the contract until the house was sold.  The proper measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the market value of the house on the date the Goldmans breached the contract, which was zero.  The court reasoned that non-breaching sellers should not be awarded the post breach costs of ownership because it could “incent the seller to hold the property indefinitely while waiting for market conditions to change, or for a purchaser willing to pay a specific price.”

Goldman v. Olmstead

Plaintiff Shabaz Din was born in Pakistan, where he became a doctor and specialized in ophthalmology. After emigrating to the United States in the 1990s, Din took a job training medical assistants with ATI Career Training Center. When the position of Medical Assistants Program Director came open, Din applied for it. ATI chose to go with a doctor of osteopathy instead. That doctor was soon replaced by a different candidate with only a vocational degree, followed by yet another new hire who had not graudated from college. Din filed a complaint with the EEOC, and ATI fired him shortly thereafter. Din sued for national origin discrimination and retaliation, and the jury awarded him damages for back pay, emotional pain and suffering, and punitives.

The Court of Appeals took up several issues in its determination of the case. First, it dismissed Din’s cause of action for retaliation because he had not raised that issue in the underlying administrative proceeding as required by Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code (formerly, the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act). As to the damages, the Court held that there was no evidence that Din had suffered any compensible emotional pain and suffering due to the failure to promote, and it therefore vacated that portion of the judgment. The Court did find that there was evidence of back-pay damages, but nowhere near enough to sustain the jury’s award of $83,000, leading to a remand for additional proceedings on both liability and damages for the back-pay issue. Finally, the Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence supporting the jury’s finding of malice or reckless indifference and found it was legally insufficient to support an award of punitive damages. Although there was evidence that the ATI manager had intended to cause Dim “some harm” in denying his promotion, that evidence did not show an intent to cause “substantial injury or harm” because the promotion would have resulted in only a small raise in Dim’s hourly salary.

ATI Enters., Inc. v. Din, No. 05-11-01522-CV

Several landowners entered into an easement agreement with the City of Celina so the City could build a sewer to a local high school.  Among other things, the City agreed to replace the top soil along the easement after the sewer was installed.  When the original top soil was not replaced, the landowners sued for inverse condemnation.  The Court of Appeals found that the agreement’s top soil provision was not intended to act as a condition subsequent.  Because the takings claim was based on the landowners assertion that breach of a condition subsequent voided the easement, the Court found that the trial court erred in denying the City’s plea to the jurisdiction.

City of Celina v. Dickerson

The Court of Appeals has once again ruled that a contractual waiver prevents a guarantor from invoking its statutory right to offset if the foreclosed property was sold for less than its fair market value. This is the seventh time the Court has made that ruling in a little over a year, dating back to August 2012 in the case of Interstate 35/Chisam Road, L.P. v. Moayedi, and as recently as August 2013 in Compass Bank v. Manchester Platinum Mgmt. In this particular instance, the parties actually stipulated that the two homes at issue had fair market values in excess of the amounts owed under the promissory notes, even though they were sold for $582,623.07 less than those stipulated values. The Court further held that the broad waiver of “any statute or limitations or other defenses affecting [the guarantor’s] liability hereunder” was sufficiently specific to include a waiver of the offset defense provided by section 53.001 of the Texas Property Code. The Court therefore reversed the trial court and rendered judgment for the deficiency in favor of the lender.

Given the importance of this recurring issue to borrowers, lenders, and guarantors, it would not be surprising to see the Texas Supreme Court weigh in. The petition for review in the Moayedi case has proceeded to briefing on the merits.

Compass Bank v. Goodman, No. 05-13-00447-CV

In 2008, Metroplex entered a mail processing agreement with Donnelley’s predecessor in interest Browne & Co under which Metroplex would sort mail for Browne’s Dallas facility customers.  In 2009, Metroplex ceased its operations, and Browne filed suit against Metroplex seeking the return of money it had on deposit.  The jury found in favor of Browne, and Metroplex appealed.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s finding of breach of contract against Metroplex and its award of attorney’s fees.  The Court, however, found no evidence to support piercing Metroplex’s corporate veil to hold its president personally liable.  Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s judgment to the extent it orders recovery against the president individually, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in all other respects.

Metroplex Mailing Servs. v. R.R. Donnelley Sons

Appellant Danny Katave and two other individuals solicited Israeli investors to develop commercial real estate. The negotiations took place in Israel, and were conducted in Hebrew. The discussions resulted in two written contracts, one in Hebrew and one in English. The Hebrew document provided for a 10% success fee to Katave, but the English document included a 20% success fee. Naturally, Katave claimed the 20% fee when the property was sold. In the resulting litigation, the jury sided with the investors, finding that Katave had committed fraud by failing to disclose that the English document did not contain the same terms as the Hebrew contract.

The Court of Appeals confirmed the adequacy of the evidence supporting the finding of fraud by omission, holding that Katave had a duty to make a full disclosure in order to correct the false impression conveyed by his partial disclosure that the terms of the documents were consistent. The Court also affirmed the trial court’s finding of $466,226 in out-of-pocket damages, rejecting Katave’s contention that his agreement to submit the issue of “damages” to the trial court did not include the measure of damages to be applied. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s award of attorney fees in favor of the investors, holding that the investors had plead and prevailed in the case as a fraud claim, not a claim for breach of contract. Because attorney fees are not recoverable on the basis of fraud, the investors could only recover their out of pocket damages.

K.A. West, LLC v. GK Investments, Inc., No. 05-11-00617-CV

The pace of the Court’s docket has slowed down since the end of August, but the stakes are still high for some litigants. Relator Todd Tomasella was convicted of criminal contempt and sentenced to consecutive terms of 6 and 3 months. The Court of Appeals granted habeas corpus because Tomasella had not had a jury trial, which cannot be denied if the sentence is in excess of six months. However, Tomasella had also been convicted of civil contempt, and he did not challenge that portion of the conviction in his habeas petition. The Court of Appeals therefore discharged the conviction and sentence for criminal contempt, but left the conviction and sentence for civil contempt in place. As a result, Tomasella will apparently remain in the custody of the Kaufman County Sheriff for an unspecified period of time.

In re Tomasella, No. 05-13-01077-CV

A little over a year ago, country music star Randy Travis was arrested for DWI, an event that was captured on the arresting officers’ dashboard video cameras. After pleading guilty, Travis’ attorney asked the court for a protective order requiring the Department of Public Saftey to destroy all copies and transcripts of the video. The trial court granted the motion. When DPS received a copy of the order, it moved to set it aside, but the trial court denied that motion. In the interim, DPS received an open records request for a copy of the video under the Texas Public Information Act. The Attorney General ruled that parts of the video could be redacted, but the rest of it must be released as public information. DPS sought mandamus relief to set aside the destruction order. Citing the AG’s ruling that the video was public information, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had no jurisdiction to order that it not be released in response to an open records request, and therefore also had no authority to order that it be destroyed.

It will be a while before the video hits the Internet, however. In accordance with the PIA, Travis has filed suit in Austin to set aside the Attorney General’s ruling that the arrest video should be released. The Court of Appeals expressed no opinion on the merits of that challenge.

In re: Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, No. 05-13-00882-CV

Except perhaps for emotional distress, lost profits continue to be one of the most difficult measures of damages to sustain on appeal. In this instance, Timothy Barton and two other individuals formed a corporation, JMJ Development, to develop resort properties in the Riviera Maya of Mexico. The company entered into non-binding letters of intent with both property owners and the owners of the W Hotel and St. Regis Hotel brands. Before those deals were completed, however, Barton formed a new corporation, JMJ Hospitality, and the record included evidence that he instructed the landowners to deal with the new company instead of JMJ Development. The jilted business associates sued for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of their shareholder agreement, tortious interference, and conspiracy. The jury returned a verdict of $7 million for past lost profits on the fiduciary duty claim and $3 million in future lost profits on the breach of contract claim.

The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered, concluding that there was insufficient evidence the original company ever had the ability to develop the properties in the first place. Although they had multiple letters of intent, the evidence showed those letters had expired of their own terms, and there had never been any binding contracts for the purchase or development of the properties. The meant there was no causation for the lost profits claimed by Barton’s former business owners. The plaintiffs also failed to account for subsequent events — namely, the economic recession that started after Barton formed his new company — and that failure rendered their lost profits model speculative and not reasonably certain. The plaintiffs also confused projected items of income as profits, without properly accounting for associated expenses. Without any reliable, non-speculative evidence of the plaintiffs’ lost damages, the Court of Appeals reversed the jury’s verdict and the trial court’s judgment.

Barton v. Resort Dev. Latin Am., Inc., No 05-11-00769-CV

After Media Consultants, LLC defaulted on its lease and filed for bankruptcy, plaintiff 11327 Reeder Road, Inc. filed suit against Kenneth Guarino and Capital Video Corp. to recover the unpaid rent owed under the lease agreement, alleging that Media Consultants and Capital Video were Guarino’s alter egos. 11327 further alleged that Guarino had fraudulently induced it to enter into a lease modification, and that Media Consultants had conspired with Guarino to commit fraud. However, Guarino and Media Consultants were not residents of Texas, and they filed a special appearance to contest personal jurisdiction. On interlocutory review from the denial of the special appearances, the Court of Appeals reversed. Proof that an individual is an officer, director, or majority owner of a company is insufficient, standing alone, to establish alter ego. Nor was there general jurisdiction over Guradino because “Making telephone calls and sending e-mails about separate business entities in another state are not the types of continuous and systematic contacts that approach the relationship between the state and its own residents.” 11327 also failed to establish jurisdiction over Guradino through proof that he had negotiated the lease modification through a telephone call to Texas, because a single telephone call to Texas that included alleged misrepresentations does not demonstrate the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas sufficient to support specific jurisdiction.

Guarino v. 11327 Reeder Road, Inc., No. 05-12-01573-CV

We’ll start off yesterday’s flurry of opinions with CTMI, LLC v. Fischer, which reiterates the familiar principle that agreements to agree don’t actually bind the parties to reach an agreement. In this instance, the parties entered into an asset purchase agreement that contained an earn-out provision. The earn-out provided that the parties would have to “mutually agree” on the percentage of completion of projects that were in progress as of December 31, 2010. The trial court ruled that provision was enforceable, but the Court of Appeals disagreed. Without the “mutually agreed” percentages required to calculate the earn-out, there was no formula that could be applied to calculate what was owed, rendering the earn-out unenforceable as a matter of law.

CTMI, LLC v. Fischer, No. 05-11-00970-CV

The Court of Appeals has mostly affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in a case arising out of “the downfall of a real estate empire built by W. Eric Brauss through a complex web of real estate limited partnerships involving hundreds of investors and creditors.” Because our firm represents some of those creditors, we will keep the commentary brief. Among other issues, the court discusses the inferences that can be drawn in a civil case from a party’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In the end, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision to render damages jointly and severally against one of the individual defendants, but affirmed the findings of fraud and the overall award of damages.

Brauss v. Triple M. Holding GMBH, No. 05-11000271-CV

Following a number of recent waiver cases, the Court of Appeals held that the appellees waived their contractual right to offset when they agreed that “Guarantor waives, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, the benefit of any statute of limitations or other defenses affecting its liability hereunder.”  The Court rejected appelles’ argument that this language was not specific enough to waiver their rights under section 51.003.

Compass Bank v. Manchester Platinum Mgmt.

In the course of a lawsuit for breach of contract and fraud, the district court entered an order permitting discovery on a pair of banks, but prohibiting the litigants from disclosing their documents to third parties. The plaintiffs’ attorney subsequently filed the two business records affidavits produced by the banks, along with 1300 pages of accompanying documents. Six months later, the defendants moved to seal the documents and for sanctions based on the earlier protective order. The trial court fined the plaintiffs’ attorney $2000. The attorney appealed after final judgment in the case, arguing that the defendants had not asked for any particular amount of sanctions and had presented no evidence justifying the $2000 award. The Court of Appeals agreed, citing the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc. for the proposition that “[s]anctions for discovery abuse should not be dispensed as arbitrary monetary penalties unrelated to any harm.” 372 S.W.3d 177, 184 (Tex. 2012). In this instance, the defendants had not even incurred any attorney fees for bringing their motion, as they were appearing pro se at the time. Accordingly, the court rendered judgment denying the motion for sanctions.

Wiegand v. Sky King Foundation Inc., No. 05-12-00020-CV

Bob Montgomery Chevrolet, a car dealership doing business entirely in Kentucky, entered into an agreement with Dent Zone, a dent repair service, to allow Dent Zone to operate out of Montgomery’s dealership in exchange for a cut of Dent Zone’s take.  After some negotiation, the parties signed an agreement that included the following language: “Additional benefits, qualifications and details of the [relationship] are available for your review at our website:  http//.linxmanager.com./pdf.CRCTermsconditions.pdf.”  The terms and conditions on that website included a minimum six-month contractual term, a Texas choice-of-law provision, and a forum-selection clause requiring any suit between the parties to be brought in Dallas, Texas.  One month after signing the agreement, Montgomery ended its relationship with Dent Zone.  Dent Zone sued Montgomery for breach of contract in Dallas, and Montgomery filed a special appearance, which the trial court denied.

On appeal, Montgomery insisted that the terms and conditions linked to in the agreement were not part of the contract, while Dent Zone argued that the terms were incorporated by reference.  The Court of Appeals agreed with Montgomery, explaining that for a contract to incorporate another document by reference that contract must demonstrate the parties’ intent to incorporate all or part of the referenced document.  Turning to the language of the agreement, the Court found that the phrase “Additional benefits, qualifications and details of the [relationship] are available for your review at our website” was informative only and   does not suggest that the parties intended the terms and conditions to become part of their agreement.

Bob Montgomery Chevrolet v. Dent Zone Cos.

The court of appeals has granted mandamus relief in a pair of cases challenging the decisions of trial courts in Dallas and Collin Counties that had granted pre-suit depositions under Rule 202. Reiterating that Rule 202 depositions are not intended for routine use, the court held that the trial courts had abused their discretion because the movants had not presented any evidence that the likely benefit of the depositions outweighed their burden or expense. Although the movant had filed verified petitions as required by Rule 202, those pleadings could not justify the pre-suit depositions because the movant had not sought to admit the verified pleadings at the Rule 202 hearings. Finding that the order granting the depositions was not subject to an ordinary appeal, the court conditionally granted mandamus to vacate the lower courts’ orders.

In re Campo, No. 05-13-00477-CV

In re Doak, No. 05-13-00538-CV

Several former Dallas municipal judges brought this lawsuit challenging the 2012 municipal judge selection process, claiming that the Mayor and the City Council violated the city code by asking nominees to comment in writing on legislative proposals by an ad hoc legislative committee and by interviewing additional candidates without justification.  The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that these former judges lack standing to sue because they seek only a declaration that the City Council violated the law.  The Court found that the judges lacked any personal stake in the outcome of the case because (1) they disclaimed any intent to challenge the appointment of their successor judges; (2) they do not seek to be reinstated as judges; and (3) they deny that they are challenging the legitimacy of any ordinance.

Rawlings v. Gonzalez

In 2006, Dr. Tran bought medical equipment on eBay for $14,580 using his Citibank credit card.  When the equipment arrived, Dr. Tran found that it was missing a key component so he contacted Citibank to dispute the purchase.  In response, Citibank issued two chargebacks: one in October 2006 for $4,580 (which the seller accepted) and one in November 2006 for the remaining $10,000 (which the seller did not accept).  Among other things, Tran sued Citibank for breach of an oral agreement to “timely” issue the credit card chargebacks together.  The Court of Appeals found that Tran had not put forward any evidence showing that Citibank agreed to issue the chargebacks “by a certain date, within a certain time frame, or at the same time.”  Thus, the Court held that the oral contract alleged by Dr. Tran failed for indefiniteness.

Citibank v Tran

In a commercial dispute concerning a furniture liquidation sale, the trial court awarded appellees damages for breach of contract and fraud, and attorney’s fees, but reduced the jury’s attorney’s fee award by nearly $425,000.  Among other issues, appellants challenge the trial court’s $100,000 judgment against Lavercombe based on fraud, and appellees challenge the trial court’s reduction of attorney’s fees.

The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment with respect to the fraud claim.  The court found no evidence in the record showing that Lavercombe made a material misrepresentation as to the quantity and availability of upholstery products with an intent to deceive and with no intention of performing as represented.  The court of appeals also reinstated the jury’s higher award of attorney’s fees because there was more than a scintilla of evidence in the record supporting the jury’s award.  In all other respects, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Broyhill Furniture Indus. v. Murphy, No. 05-11-01545-CV

Gautam and Shweta Daftary leased office space for their dental practice from the Henry S.  Miller real estate firm (“HSM”).  Among other disputes with HSM, the Dafatarys argued that they were constructively evicted from their office space when a excessively loud dance studio moved into the the office next door. Although HSM contended that the Dafatarys took too long to leave the premises to support a constructive eviction claim, the Court of Appeals upheld the jury’s finding that 13 months is a reasonable amount of time to expect a dental practice to move offices.

Daftary v. Prestonwood Markey Square

In 2009, Andres Diaz paid $85,000 for his “dream car,” a 2010 Mercedes C63 AMG. Two weeks later, Caroline Culwell rear-ended him at a stop light, costing Diaz over $9,000 for repairs. At trial, Culwell stipulated to liability, leaving only the question of damages to be decided by the jury. Among other items, Diaz sought to recover $15,671 for the post-accident diminution in value of the car. That claim was supported by the testimony of Diaz’s appraisal expert, but the jury awarded $0.00 for diminished value. Diaz sought judgment notwithstanding that portion of the verdict, and the trial court awarded him the full amount of the claim. The court of appeals reversed, holding that it was within the province of the jury to disbelieve the appraisal expert’s testimony. Even uncontroverted expert testimony does not bind the jury unless the subject matter is one for experts alone. The court of appeals concluded that determining the value of a car for diminution of value damages is not so complicated that an expert’s testimony is required for the jury to understand the issue. Accordingly, the court of appeals reinstated the jury’s refusal to award Diaz any damages for diminution of value.

Culwell v. Diaz, No. 05-12-00093-CV

Mesquite ISD filed an interlocutory appeal after the district court denied a motion for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity. The school district had terminated plaintiff Tomasa Mendoza after she washed several dirty mop heads and placed them in the dryer, causing a fire. (Flaming mop heads are apparently a thing, and it was the second such fire in the school district in the same year.) Mendoza sued for gender and national-origin discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. The school district moved for summary judgment, claiming governmental immunity on the basis that Mendoza could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The court of appeals held that Mendoza had failed to meet her burden on the gender discrimination claim because she had not shown that she was replaced by someone outside of the protected class, or that she was treated less favorably than similarly situated members of another class. The school district had reassigned one woman to replace Mendoza and hired another woman to take over the open slot, facts which negated the claim she had been fired based on her gender. Mendoza also argued that she had been treated differently than the male employee who had failed to collect the dirty mop heads in the first place, as he had only been reprimanded instead of being fired. However, that employee’s duties and the nature of his misconduct were both sufficiently different from Mendoza’s that the court of appeals concluded they were not “similarly situated.” But the court of appeals sustained the trial court’s ruling on the national origin claim, concluding that a genuine issue of material fact existed because the woman hired for the open custodial position was outside Mendoza’s protected class. Thus, the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the claim for national-origin discrimination.

Mesquite Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Mendoza, No. 05-12-01479-CV

Twice before, Elite Door & Trim had prevailed at the court of appeals in its attempt to obtain a no-answer default judgment against the defendant in a dispute between the two contractors. See Elite Door & Trim, Inc. v. Tapia, 355 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.); In re Elite Door & Trim, Inc., 362 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2012, orig. proceeding). After the trial court again proceeded to hear the default motion, it entered an order denying it once again, finding that Elite had failed to establish liability because it had not proven various non-damages elements of its claims. The court of appeals rejected that finding, because Tapia’s failure to file an answer served as an admission of the contentions in Elite’s petition. The court of appeals also reversed the trial court’s finding that Elite had not submitted competent evidence of its damages, concluding that the testimony of Elite’s president had adequately established the amount and method of calculating the company’s damages, attorney fees, and prejudgment interest. However, the court of appeals rejected Elite’s request for $15,000 in sanctions against the trial judge for requiring Elite to pursue multiple appeals and mandamuses to obtain a no-answer default judgment, as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 no longer permits such relief against a judge for an act or omission taken in the judge’s official capacity in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. In all other respects, the court of appeals rendered judgment in favor of Elite.

Elite Door & Trim, Inc. v. Tapia, No. 05-12-00725-CV

BH DFW, the local franchise of the Blue Haven Pool & Spa group, took out an advertisement in the Dallas Morning News, claiming that it was the “World’s Largest!” That did not sit well with the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Dallas, whose guidelines require its members to be truthful when making statements of objective fact in their ads. When BH was unable to substantiate that it was, in fact, the “World’s Largest!”, the BBB revoked the company’s “Accredited Business” status and demoted its rating from A+ to F. BH sued for breach of contract, and the BBB moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act.

On interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the BBB’s motion to dismiss. The court first rejected BH’s argument that there was no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, disagreeing with the Fort Worth Court of Appeals’ previous holding that the TCPA did not grant the right of interlocutory appeal when the trial court timely denies a motion to dismiss. Proceeding to the merits, the court held that the TCPA was not narrowly limited to cases involving a citizen’s participation in government, but was instead more broadly extended to matters of free speech involving a matter of public concern. Although the TCPA includes an exemption for certain types of commercial speech, that exemption was not applicable to BH’s claims because the BBB was not engaged in the sale or lease of goods or services. Finally, the court of appeals held that the trial court should have granted the BBB’s motion to dismiss because BH had failed to come forward with prima facie evidence of the existence of a contract requiring the BBB to maintain BH as an accredited business in exchange for its $1000 annual fee. The court therefore rendered judgment in favor of the BBB and remanded to the trial court for consideration of its attorney fees and expenses.

Better Business Bureau v. BH DFW, Inc., No. 05-12-00587-CV

After receiving a number of unresolved or unanswered complaints over several years, the Better Business Bureau (“BBB”) gave the Lloyd Ward & Associates (“Ward”) an “F” rating.  Ward was not happy about this and sued the BBB for libel, slander, and negligence, seeking an injunction preventing the BBB from including Ward in its listing service.  The BBB moved to dismiss on constitutional and other grounds, but the trial court denied their motion.

On appeal, the Court referred to its related opinion in another BBB-related lawsuit, which held that the BBB’s rating service provided a service to the marketplace and, thus, qualified as a matter of public concern under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (“TCPA”).  Because the TCPA applied to the BBB’s ratings, the burden shifted to Ward to establish “by clear and specific evidence” a prima facie case for each element of his claims.  But in his arguments on appeal Ward never presented any evidence for his case, instead relying entirely on the argument that the TCPA did not apply at all.  The Court therefore found that Ward failed to meet his burden and reversed the trial court’s decision.

Better Business Bureau v. Ward

Elizabeth Rebeles thought she was in a common law marriage with Paul Leighton, and with good reason — they had been living together since 1984, purchased property and filed tax returns as husband and wife, and started a business together. But after Rebeles filed for divorce in 2006, she discovered that there was no documentation of her divorce from her previous husband, meaning that she could not prove she had ever been validly married to Leighton. The parties nonsuited the divorce case, and Rebeles filed a new suit in which she claimed the parties had formed a general partnership during the time they were together.

The jury found that the parties had indeed formed a partnership back in 1984 and that an event requiring wind-up had occurred in 2006. In accordance with that finding, the trial court wound-up the business and divided the partnership assets. The court of appeals affirmed that aspect of the case, rejecting Leighton’s contention that Rebeles had released  her interest in the partnership through a document she had signed to relinquish “all past, present, and future interest in Paul’s Pit Sand and Gravel, and in Hutchins Sand & Gravel and any dealings by Paul M. Leighton.” That release made no reference to the partnership itself, and both parties testified that they had not intended it to release any claim to other property owned by the partnership. To the court of appeals, those facts supported the jury’s finding that Rebeles had not released her interest in the partnership itself. However, the court of appeals also reinstated a $31,000 verdict in favor of Leighton, based on his claim that Rebeles had breached a post-breakup oral contract for her separately owned company to perform billing and clerical services for one of their jointly owned gravel pits. Even though the oral contract related to the partnership business, there was sufficient evidence to show that the parties were representing their independent interests at the time it was made, and not as agents of the partnership itself. Accordingly, the breach of contract finding could still be harmonized with the general partnership finding, and the court of appeals rendered judgment in favor of Leighton.

Leighton v. Rebeles, No. 05-11-01519-CV

Phytel, Inc. brought an interlocutory appeal after the district court denied its motion to compel arbitration of its former CEO’s claim that his noncompete agreement was unenforceable. The arbitration clause was contained in the CEO’s termination agreement, which also reaffirmed the noncompete provision in his original employment agreement. However, a subsequent agreement for the repurchase of the CEO’s stock did not contain a separate arbitration clause, although it reaffirmed the terms and conditions of the earlier termination agreement and modified the noncompete provision. The court of appeals concluded that the reincorporation of the prior contact necessarily encompassed the dispute resolution provisions of that agreement, and further held that the arbitration requirement applied to the validity of the noncompete because its subject matter related to all three of the parties’ agreements. The court rejected the CEO’s contention that a merger clause in the third contract worked to exclude the arbitration provision of the second contract because the incorporation of the second agreement by reference resulted in it becoming an inherent part of the subsequent document. Finally, the court of appeals also rejected the claim that Phytel had waived its right to invoke arbitration, holding that waiting two months after the lawsuit was filed and exchanging one set of discovery and initial disclosures did not substantially invoke the judicial process to the prejudice of the CEO. The court of appeals therefore reversed and rendered the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration.

Phytel, Inc. v. Snyder, No. 05-12-00607-CV

In 1989, the Texas Legislature passed the Residential Construction Liability Act, which preempts or modifies many types of claims for damages arising from any “construction defect.” In this case, the court of appeals applied the RCLA to bar a homeowner’s claim for lost rental value of his condominium during the long delay occasioned by the remodeling contractor before the contract was finally terminated. Under the statute, a “construction defect” is defined broadly to include any matter “concerning the design, construction, or repair of a new residence, of an alteration of or repair or addition to an existing residence, or of an appurtenance to a residence, on which a person has a complaint against a contractor.” Tex. Prop. Code § 27.001(4). Because the contractor’s delay was one such matter, the court held that the RCLA governed the claim for damages caused by the delay. The plaintiff’s claim could not succeed under the RCLA for two reasons. First, the homeowner had failed to give the contractor notice of the claim, as required by the statute. Second, the plaintiff was seeking to recover the rental value of his own home during the time that completion of the remodeling was delayed, while the RCLA would only allow the homeowner to recover the cost of substitute housing. Id. § 27.004(g)(4). The court of appeals therefore rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothinig and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the amount of attorney fees the defendant was entitled to under an agreement of the parties.

Timmerman v. Dale, No. 05-11-01690-CV

Charles Searock sued his former employer, Tactical Air Defense Services, Inc. and Gary Fears, for, among other things, breaching his employment contract.  After the defendants filed an answer and participated in discovery, their attorney withdrew as counsel and they didn’t show up for trial.  The trial court entered a post-answer default, but Fears and TADS moved for a new trial because, they claim, they never got notice of the trial date.  This motion was denied. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court because affidavit evidence proved that neither Fears nor TADS received notice of the trial setting.  Moreover, the notice of trial provided to counsel for Fears and TADS before he withdrew cannot be imputed to them because the record lacked evidence indicating that the withdrawing counsel took efforts to inform his clients of the trial date before he withdrew.

Tactical Air Defense v. Searock

Almost nine years ago, the 68th District Court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict against plaintiff Basic Capital Management and several related entities, wiping out a jury verdict in their favor for tens of millions of dollars in lost profits. The underlying dispute involved the failure of Dynex to fund an alleged $160 million loan commitment for Basic’s “Single-Asset, Bankruptcy Remote Entities” to make real estate investments. In 2008, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling, holding that the SABRE entities were not intended, third-party beneficiaries of the loan agreement, and that the lost profits from the contemplated real estate transactions were not foreseeable. In 2011, the Texas Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case for consideration of Dynex’s argument that the damages were not supported by legally sufficient evidence. Now, in 2013, the court of appeals has held that, with one exception, there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury’s original award of damages. The court went through a detailed analysis of the testimony of Basic’s damages expert, concluding that his testimony was sufficient to sustain the jury’s award of damages for the lost real estate investments Basic had envisioned. However, the court of appeals sustained the trial court’s grant of JNOV as to one item of damages — $252,577 awarded by the jury for “lost opportunity” on an investment that Basic had actually completed.

The saga of Basic v. Dynex is not over yet. In addition to the possibility of further appeal to the Supreme Court, the court of appeals also remanded to the district court for further consideration of Basic’s claim for attorney fees, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest. We’ll keep you posted if the case results in any further opinions on appeal.

Basic Capital Mgmt., Inc. v. Dynex Commercial, Inc., No. 05-04-01358-CV

The court vacated and reversed and rendered the trial court’s judgment in a forcible-detainer action awarding the Plaintiff possession of the property, damages, and attorney’s fees. The Daftarys commercial real estate lease with HSM expired in 2008, and they sought to exercise a three-year renewal option. The parties did not execute a written extension, but the Daftarys continued paying rent for over a year beginning in July 2008. In December 2009, HSM requested that the Daftarys either execute a new long-term lease or vacate, and when the Daftarys refused filed this forcible-detainer action. On the morning of trial, the Daftarys relinquished the keys to the property and tendered possession of the space to the court and then argued that the case was moot because it no longer presented an issue about which party was entitled to possession. The trial court proceeded to a bench trial, awarding HSM possession, damages for the rental difference, and attorney’s fees.

On appeal, the court held that the issue of possession was moot, but that HSM’s claims for damages and attorney’s fees incurred defending possession presented live controversies. HSM failed to show sufficient evidence of damages, however, because they only presented evidence that the property’s rental value had increased in July 2008, and presented no evidence of value in December 2009 when their right to possession accrued. And because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the possession issue and erred by awarding HSM’s damages, HSM was no longer the prevailing party and could not collect attorney’s fees.

Daftary v. Prestonwood Market Square, No. 05-11-00673-CV

AdvoCare employed Plaintiffs as distributors to sell its products.  Under this distribution arrangement, these distributors earned commissions based on products sold both to consumers and to other distributors “down line.”   But AdvoCare could choose not to renew these distributorships every year, and it retained the right to terminate its distributors if they breached certain conditions.  When AdvoCare terminated each of the Plaintiffs for failing to comply with these very conditions, Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  The jury found for the Plaintiffs on the DTPA claim only.

AdvoCare appealed because, it argued, the Plaintiffs were not “consumers,” and the DTPA expressly limits recovery to situations where (1) consumers acquired goods or services by purchase or lease and (2) the goods or services purchased or leased form the basis of the complaint.  Examining the record, the Court of Appeals found that Plaintiffs’ claim rested almost entirely on the wrongful termination of their distributorships.  Indeed, the Court pointed out that “the sole basis for the claimed damages is the value of each distributorship as of the date AdvoCare terminated their distributorships.”  Because “[n]either the termination nor the lost value is tied to any alleged defective product or service,” the DTPA claim fails.

Advocare International LP v. Ford, et al. No. 05-10-00590-CV

We don’t usually cover family law cases here at 600 Commerce, but this one involves the validity of an award of attorney fees as a sanction against the plaintiff. Steven Shilling and Karrie Gough divorced in 2005. The divorce decree included an agreed permanent injunction prohibiting the Ms. Gough from “disclosing” information about her ex-husband’s medical history. Several years later, Mr. Shilling sued his ex-wife for allegedly violating the injunction. After a bench trial, the trial court ruled that Gough had not violated the injunction by discussing Shilling’s medical history with her friend and new husband because they already knew about Shilling’s medical history — hence, Gough had not “disclosed” it to them. The trial court then awarded Ms. Gough $96,000 in attorney fees under both section 9.014 of the Family Code and as sanctions against Shilling for bringing a frivolous and bad faith lawsuit.

After rejecting section 9.014 as the basis for an award of fees — concluding that section only authorizes attorney fees in a suit for enforcement of the division of property, not enforcement of an injunction against speech — the court of appeals turned to the issue of attorney fees as a sanction. Gough’s answer had requested an award of attorney fees and stated that Shilling’s suit was “frivolous and brought for the purposes of harassment only.” The pleading was otherwise silent on the basis for any award of fees, no motion for sanctions was ever filed, and the trial court never issued any order for Shilling to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. Under those circumstances, the court of appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding fees to Gough under Chapter 10 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code, which requires either a motion for sanctions or an order to show cause that describes the sanctionable conduct. The court likewise ruled that the attorney fees could not be sustained as a sanction under Rule 13 for filing a case that was “groundless and brought in bad faith,” because it was not self-evident that Ms. Gough’s discussions with her friend and new husband had not “disclosed” new information about Shilling’s medical history. Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed and rendered the attorney fees award.

Shilling v. Gough, No. 05-11-00292-CV

Upon dismissing appellant’s groundless DTPA claim, the trial court awarded appellee $42,500 in attorney’s fees.  On top of that, the trial court ruled that appellant had to deposit $36,000 to supersede the judgment.  This ruling was based on the trial courts finding that the attorney’s fees it awarded to appellee were compensatory damages requiring a supersedeas bond. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that attorney’s fees are not compensatory damages and thus do not necessitate the identified security.

Lopez v. RS Clark, No. 05-12-00868-CV

Way back in 1989, a latex products manufacturer named Ansell Healthcare Products registered a federal trademark for the phrase “Condom Sense,” which it used in advertising its Lifestyle condoms. A few years later, Ansell sought federal registration of Condom Sense as a service mark for a proposed chain of retail stores. But Ansell’s own retail stores never materialized, and it ended up licensing the mark to Condom Sense, Inc. (“CSI”), which had already opened up its own Condom Sense store in Dallas.

In 1997, CSI sold its original store on Greenville Avenue, including the right to use the Condom Sense name. That sale led to a series of competing claims over use of the name at multiple locations, including some inconclusive preliminary litigation. In 2005, Ansell — which had never used the mark itself, and which had been unaware of all the drama over its use in Texas — assigned CSI all of its interest in the federal service mark.  CSI then registered the mark in Texas, along with three related service marks that also used the Condom Sense name. CSI ended up suing the operators of the other Condom Sense stores, alleging trademark infringement under the federal Lanham Act, the Texas Trademark Act, and Texas common law. After a bench trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the competitors and cancelled registrations of both the federal and state service marks.  CSI and its owners appealed.

According to the court of appeals, CSI’s competitors were not entitled to cancellation of the state service mark even though the trial court found that CSI registered the mark fraudulently, i.e., while knowing that competitors were also using the Condom Sense mark.  Under section 16.28 of the Business & Commerce Code, the party asking the court to cancel the registration must be someone who was “injured” by the false or fraudulent procurement of the service mark registration, but the other Condom Sense owners had failed to submit any evidence that they were injured by it.  But the court of appeals sustained the trial court’s cancellation of the federal service mark, giving credit to testimony that Ansell’s licensing agreement with CSI had not been renewed past its original expiration date in 1999, and that the mark had therefore lapsed because Ansell had abandoned it. Finally, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the competitors’ laches and unclean hands defenses, holding that the evidence supported the lower court’s rulings that five years had been too long for CSI to sit on its rights before bringing suit, and that it had acted improperly in selling any rights to the Condom Sense name (in the 1997 sale of the original store) at a time when it was merely a licensee of Ansell’s mark.

Condom Sense, Inc. v. Alshalabi, No. 05-10-01024-CV

In 2011, the Texas Legislature enacted the Texas Citizens Participation Act, a type of statute that is known nationally as an anti-SLAPP (“Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”) act. As with other anti-SLAPP laws, the TCPA gives litigants the right to file a motion to dismiss if the claim involves their “exercise of the right of free speech, right to participation, or right of association.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.003(a). The filing of such a motion stays discovery in the case (except on a showing of good cause) and puts the burden on the claimant to establish a prima facie case for each element of the claim.  Id. §§ 27.003(a) & 27.005(c). The motion has to be heard within 30 days of filing, and the court must rule on the motion within an additional 30 days or the motion is deemed to be denied by operation of law. §§ 27.004, 27.005, 27.008(a). If the motion is overruled by operation of law, the TCPA grants the movant the right to an interlocutory appeal. Id. § 27.008(a). In short, the TCPA is a powerful tool for the defendant in a defamation case, requiring the plaintiff to prove early in the case that it already has evidence supporting each element of the defamation claim, and potentially taking the case out of the hands of the trial court altogether.

(Strangely, the statute does not expressly grant the movant the right to appeal if the trial court timely denies the motion to dismiss. See Lipsky v. Range Prod. Co., 2012 WL 3600014 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Aug. 23, 2012, pet. filed). It is unclear whether anything will be done to fix that apparent oversight in the coming legislative session, or whether the Supreme Court will find authorization for such an appeal implicit in the statute.)

The Dallas Court of Appeals has now become one of the first appellate courts to weigh in on the substance of the TCPA. In Avila v. Larrea, an attorney sued Univision and one of its reporters after they broadcast a story suggesting he had engaged in misconduct against some of his clients. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the TCPA and the trial court conducted a hearing. But instead of ruling on the motion itself, the trial court found good cause to permit 90 days of discovery and continued the hearing until that discovery was completed. After 30 days, however, the defendants filed their interlocutory appeal, arguing that the appeal was authorized because the motion was automatically denied after 30 days. The court of appeals agreed, then went on to hold that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence that the alleged statements were false, or that the broadcaster had failed to exercise due care to prevent other people from making defamatory statements in the broadcast.  The court of appeals therefore rendered judgment in favor of the defendants and remanded to the trial court to consider an award of damages and costs against the plaintiff.

Avila v. Larrea, No. 05-11-01637-CV

The court of appeals has issued a lengthy opinion in an employment non-disclosure case, partially affirming a jury verdict in favor of the former employer.  In this instance, both the plaintiff and the corporate defendant were in the business of providing in-home pediatric nursing services.  After the defendant company hired away three of the plaintiff’s employees, eleven of the plaintiff’s most profitable accounts moved over to the new company.  The court of appeals started by noting that the defendants did not challenge the jury’s finding that they had entered into a conspiracy to damage the plaintiff.  That led the court to conclude that each of the defendants was jointly and severally liable for the other defendants’ breaches of their non-disclosure agreements, which were themselves established by sufficient evidence at trial.  The court of appeals upheld the jury’s award of $250,000 in lost profits attributable to the eleven patients lost by the plaintiff, but reversed and rendered amounts that had been awarded for profits that would have been earned after the plaintiff went bankrupt and sold off its business.  According to the court, there was no evidence that he plaintiff would have had the right to continue receiving profits from customers after the business was sold, so there was no evidentiary basis for the recovery of those post-sale profits.  Finally, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of JNOV against the plaintiff on its claim for attorney fees, holding that fees were not recoverable because the plaintiff had not offered any proof of presentment to the defendants.

Helping Hands Home Care, Inc. v. Home Health of Tarrant County, Inc., No. 05-08-01657-CV

In this Memorandum Opinion, the Court of Appeals addressed who has the authority to determine whether arbitration should be compelled: a court or an arbitrator.  The Court noted that, while, as a general matter, the courts decide whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate an particular issue, “the parties may agree to submit the substantive issue of arbitrability to arbitration.”  In this case, the relevant arbitration provision included the following clause: “Whether such Dispute will be subject to arbitration will likewise be determined in such arbitration as will the determination as to whether all procedural conditions precedent to arbitration have been satisfied.”  According to the Court, this provision presents “clear an unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator.”  The Court, however, expressed no opinion on whether the plaintiffs’ claims actually should be submitted to arbitration because that, of course, was an issue for the arbitrator to decide.

Continuum Health Services, LLC v. Sheila Cross, No. 05-11-01520-CV

Richardson Hospital Authority (“RHA”) hired Plaintiff, Placidus Duru, as a nursing assistant.  But when Duru was indicted for sexually abusing a patient, the hospital terminated him.  Four years later, when the prosecution dismissed the criminal case against Duru, he turned around and sued RHA for malicious prosecution, business disparagement, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.  RHA moved to dismiss these claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but the trial court denied their motion for all claims except malicious prosecution.  The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the business disparagement, breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims (the malicious prosecution claim’s dismissal was not appealed), finding that the Texas Tort Claims Act did not waive the sovereign immunity enjoyed by RHA, a public institution, because Duru’s pleadings “affirmatively negate jurisdiction.”

Richardson Hospital Authority v. Placidus Duru, No. 05-12-00165-CV

Maybe things would have gone better for King Lear if the court of appeals had been around to mandamus Goneril and Regan.  In this case, Francis Hutchins’ will divided the estate among her three daughters and appointed one of them, Susan Jones, as the executrix of the estate.  But before the will was filed with the probate court, another one of the daughters, Karen Coyle, took possession of some of the property, including a Chrysler 300 and some jewelry.  Susan filed a “Motion for Turnover Order,” citing both section 37 of the Probate Code and section 31.002 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code, seeking to force Karen to return the property to the estate.  The trial court denied the motion, leaving Susan to seek mandamus relief from the Dallas Court of Appeals.

Karen argued that section 31.002 was inapplicable because it only governs post-judgment turnover orders, and there was no judgment resolving the disputed issue of who should get to keep the property.  But while the parties’ arguments below had focused on that question, the court of appeals relied on the Probate Code to determine that the property should be returned pending administration of the estate, and that the trial court had abused  its discretion by denying the turnover motion solely on the basis of section 31.002.  The court further held that Susan had no adequate remedy at law because she was entitled to possession of the property even in the absence of an appealable judgment.  Accordingly, the court of appeals conditionally granted Susan’s petition for writ of mandamus.

In re Estate of Francis J. Hutchins, No. 05-12-01098-CV; see also In re Estate of Francis J. Hutchins, No. 05-12-01163 (dismissing concurrent appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there was no appealable judgment).

Carment Llerena, a former bookkeeper and secretary for Defendant North Texas Trucking, sued her former employer for negligence and fraud related to her termination.  The jury found North Texas liable and rendered judgment in Llerena’s favor, and the trial court overruled North Texas’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.  On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and found that Llerena should instead take nothing from North Texas on both claims.

The Court’s opinion turned on two issues.  First, the Court rejected Llerena’s fraud claim. While Llerena argued that she was fraudulently induced to accept a job with defendant based on North Texas’ representation that it had workers’ compensation insurance, the Court found that she had presented no evidence of “what she would have received had North Texas provided workers’ compensation insurance.”  Second, the Court rejected Llerena’s contention that her former employer caused her to work in unsafe conditions that led to her carpal tunnel syndrome, finding instead that she presented “no evidence that any modification of her work environment or work requirements would have prevented or lessened her injury.”

North Texas Trucking v. Carmen Llerna, NO. 05-10-01061-CV

A developer in Wylie purchased two adjoining tracts of land.  In 2004, he decided to sell  one of the properties to Capital One.  However, the city decided that both properties would have to be developed as one site, with a single access site on the Capitol One property.  The parties therefore entered into a cross-easement agreement, requiring Capital One to pave the internal drives that would link the access site to both of the properties.  However, Capital One finished its construction and obtained a certificate of occupancy without ever constructing the new approach.  The developer ended up building the driveway himself, and sued Capital One to pay for its cost.  After a bench trial, the trial court awarded the developer awarding approximately $22,000 in damages and another $100,000 for attorney fees.

The court of appeals reversed.   According to the appellate court, the cross-easement agreement required the parties to “keep and maintain” the driveway, but not to actually construct it.  The court also rejected the developer’s argument that Capital One had breached the agreement by failing to comply with a government regulation by not constructing the driveway, because there was no evidence the city had ever ordered Capital One to construct it.  The court also rejected the developer’s quantum meruit argument for failing to attack all grounds asserted in the bank’s summary judgment motion, and remanded to the district court for a determination of the bank’s attorney fees as the prevailing party under their contract.

Capital One, N.A. v. Haddock, No. 05-10-01028-CV

The court reversed a judgment awarding an law firm lost profits in an action against a litigation services company. Elrod, a litigation law firm, hired A-Legal to perform support services related to E-Discovery. Two days later, Elrod pulled the job when A-Legal doubled the price it previously quoted. Both parties sued each other for breach of contract. Elrod claimed damages from lost revenue and lost business opportunities due to the time its attorney’s and staff lost dealing with A-Legal’s breach. Elrod presented evidence of lost revenue, which it valued at $20,000, but the only specific evidence relating to a worker’s time lost dealing with the breach came from one attorney, Nassar. Nassar testified that her hourly rate is $325 and that she spent about eighty hours in total “dealing with the situation.” Elrod made no attempt to establish what expenses would have been attributable to Nassar’s billable hours or whether the firm lost any specific business or billing during that time. The trial court entered a judgment awarding $20,000 lost profits plus attorney’s fees.

On appeal, the court noted that the only calculation that can be made from Elrod’s evidence is potential gross revenue brought in by Nassar, not net profits, because Elrod presented no evidence to show any expenses related to that revenue or that she actually billed less time because of the breach than she would have otherwise. Thus, the evidence was legally insufficient to show lost profits, the only measure of damages presented, and the court reversed and rendered a take nothing judgment.

A-Delta Overnight Legal Reproduction Services Corp. v. David W. Elrod, PLLC, No. 05-11-00708-CV

Another installment in the court’s recent spate of shareholder oppression opinions finds the court reversing a judgment in favor of the minority shareholder. Martin and Shagrithaya started a software company named ARGO in 1980 with $1000. Martin and Shagrithaya retained 53% and 47% interests in ARGO respectively and were the sole board members, but Martin had the right to appoint a tiebreaker. There was no express agreement as to employment or compensation, which was determined on a year to year basis. For 25 years, they received equal compensation. By 2008, ARGO was valued at $152 million.

In the early 2000s, tensions arose as Martin became unhappy with what he saw as Shagrithaya’s refusal to take on executive responsibilities. In 2006, Martin unilaterally cut Shagrithaya’s annual compensation from $1 million to $300,000. Soon after, Martin and ARGO’s management began to isolate Shagrithaya. Around this time, the IRS performed an audit of ARGO and found assess it over $7 million in retained earnings tax. ARGO contested this assessment and won. Shagrithaya was not informed of the assessment or contest.

After an independent appraisal of ARGO, Martin offered Shagrithaya $66 million for his shares, representing their values less a 35% minority holder discount. Shagrithaya refused, arguing that there should be no discount because ARGO is not a third-party. Shagrithaya demanded an audit of ARGO and proposed an alternative plan to restore his previous salary, explore a sale of ARGO, and issue an $85 million dividend. ARGO allowed the audit, which uncovered that Martin had misappropriated ARGO funds to his personal use. Martin reimbursed ARGO the amount appropriated plus some amount more. In a final board meeting in December 2008, Martin appointed ARGO president Engebos as the third board member. They voted in favor of Martin’s plans regarding compensation, executive positions, and a$25 million dividend.

After losing the vote on all three issues, Shagrithaya resigned and filed a suit for shareholder oppression and other torts. At trial, Shagrithaya advanced the theory that Martin schemed to withhold compensation and dividends to ARGO so that ARGO could purchase Shagrithaya’s shares at a minority discount and force Shagrithaya out of the company. The jury found in Shagrithaya’s favor, and the trial court entered a judgment awarding Shagrithaya back compensation and ordering ARGO to issue an $85 million dividend.

On appeal, Martin and ARGO challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding of suppression. The court reviewed eleven of Martin and AGRO’s actions that the jury found to be oppressive to determine whether they (1) substantially defeated Shagrithaya’s objectively reasonable expectations central to his decision to join the venture or (2) constituted “burdensome, harsh, or wrongful conduct; a lack of probity and fair dealing in the company’s affairs to the prejudice of [Shagrithaya]; or a visible departure from the standards of fair dealing and a violation of fair play.”

ACTS 1 and 7: Martin reduced Shagrithaya’s annual compensation by 70 percent and forced him to report to ARGO’s president, Engebos, without the approval of the Board of Directors or shareholders. The court held that it was not reasonable for Shagrithaya to expect to maintain a level of compensation equal to Martin’s indefinitely without an employment contract. Additionally, the absence of board approval was later corrected at the December 2008 board meeting and the board retroactively cured the discrepancy in Shagrithaya’s actual past compensation. Though Shagrithaya voted against the reduction, the court noted that the inability to control board decisions is inherent in the position of a minority shareholder, citing Patton v. Nicholas. Finally, it did not prejudice Shagrithaya’s rights as a board member because these issues were purely employment matters.

ACT 2: ARGO maintained Martin’s compensation at $1 million without board approval. Shagrithaya argued that this constituted a de facto dividend to Martin, but the court found no evidence of such. And again, the boards retroactively approved and cured this action.

ACTS 3-4: Martin schemed to buy out Shagrithaya retaining earnings and refusing to pay dividends. The court held that these actions alone did not constitute oppression. The dividend were equally suppressed for Martin, and some dividends were issued and shared accordingly with Shagrithaya. Further, there was no evidence that these actions reduced Shagrithaya’s share value. The court noted that Shagrithaya had no specific expectation of dividends, and shareholders have not general expectation of dividends.

ACTS 5 and 11: Martin did not disclose the IRS assessment or ARGO’s engagement of a law firm to challenge it. The court held that because the assessment was reversed, there was no harm to Shagrithaya’s interests, and the legal representation benefited ARGO by securing the reversal.

ACT 6: Martin offered Shagrithaya $66 million for his shares at a minority discount and forced him to accept by withholding dividends. The court held that because Shagrithaya was never forced to relinquish ownership – his intent to sell was voluntary – the fair market value of his minority shares, including the discount, was the proper valuation. Using the shares’ enterprise value in the sale would only be required if ARGO or Martin were forced to purchase them. Further, the mere purchase offer, without other financial pressure, was not oppressive.

ACTS 8-10: Martin’s misappropriation of ARGO assets for his personal use. Martin’s repayment remedied any harm to Shagrithaya prior to trial.

The jury also found for Shagrithaya on his claims for fraud, breach of implied agreement, and breach of fiduciary duty. The fraud claim related to Martin’s failure to disclose his buyout scheme. The court held that his failure to disclose did not harm Shagrithaya because Shagrithaya could not force a dividend and possible sale of shares at that time were to speculative. Shagrithaya’s alleged Martin breached an implied agreement to continue their practice of equal compensation. The court held that this practice was not sufficient to establish an agreement, and in any case the terms of any agreement were too indefinite. Finally, Martin’s retaining of earnings, misuse of funds, and sale of ARGO’s assets did not cause Shagrithaya harm even if it breached his fiduciary duties.

ARGO Data Resource Corporation and Max Martin v. Balkrishna Shagrithaya, 05-10-00690-CV