Beatrice Vasquez & Darryl De La Cruz v. Old Austin Road Land Trust, Joseph Anthony Pizzini Individually and as Trustee of Old Austin Road Land Trust, & John Price, 04-16-00025-CV

Background

De La Cruz owned a Selma, Texas lot; Vasquez (his aunt) lived in a house on the lot. De La Cruz conveyed the property to Ralph Carpenter in 1999.
Vasquez and De La Cruz sued Carpenter under the DTPA; a jury found Carpenter liable and awarded Vasquez damages.
Carpenter later conveyed the property (2013) to Old Austin Road Land Trust (appellees); appellants then sued Carpenter and the appellees asserting DTPA, fraudulent-transfer (TUFTA), trespass-to-try-title, civil conspiracy, IIED, and other claims.
The appellees moved for traditional summary judgment on affirmative defenses (bona fide purchaser, collateral estoppel) and no-evidence summary judgment on appellants’ claims; the trial court granted summary judgment and severed the matter.
On appeal, the court reversed parts of the trial court’s judgment (notably as to claims against Carpenter and certain defenses) and affirmed other parts (no-evidence dismissal of several tort and DTPA claims against the appellees), then remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Grant of summary judgment as to Carpenter	Appellants argued claims against Carpenter were adjudicated despite Carpenter not moving for summary judgment	Appellees treated Carpenter as a resolved defendant in the summary judgment order	Reversed — court cannot grant summary judgment for a party who did not move for it; claims vs. Carpenter remain pending
Bona fide purchaser defense (title/TUFTA)	Appellants argued appellees had constructive notice because Vasquez was in sole, visible possession	Appellees argued they purchased in good faith for value without notice	Reversed — factual dispute exists whether appellees had constructive notice; summary judgment on this defense improper
Collateral estoppel (reliance on prior DTPA judgment)	Appellants said prior DTPA judgment against Carpenter does not preclude new claims; title issues were not fully litigated earlier	Appellees argued prior DTPA litigation resolved title or barred relitigation	Reversed — prior action did not fully and fairly litigate facts essential to title; collateral estoppel inapplicable
No-evidence DTPA claim (consumer status)	Appellants claimed DTPA applies to appellees’ conduct	Appellees argued appellants were not "consumers" re: the transaction (did not seek/acquire goods/services)	Affirmed — appellants not consumers for the conveyance transaction; DTPA claim fails
No-evidence civil conspiracy (DTPA-based)	Appellants asserted appellees conspired to acquire property knowing it would deceive them	Appellees said no evidence they knew the acquisition would deceive appellants or participated in a deceptive course of conduct	Affirmed — no evidence appellees knew the acquisition had a tendency to deceive; summary judgment proper
No-evidence IIED	Appellants claimed appellees’ conduct (e.g., terminating utilities) was extreme/outrageous and caused severe distress	Appellees argued conduct was not extreme/outrageous and any distress was not severe	Affirmed — conduct not legally extreme/outrageous as a matter for summary judgment; claim dismissed
No-evidence trespass-to-try-title / fraudulent-transfer remedies	Appellants argued prior judgment and post-judgment acts supported superior title and avoidance of transfer	Appellees argued appellants lacked superior title and TUFTA avoidance is barred by bona fide purchaser	Mixed — no-evidence dismissal of trespass claim reversed (appellants presented evidence defeating no-evidence challenge); TUFTA avoidance tied to bona fide purchaser defense also reversed due to factual dispute
Evidentiary rulings (Price affidavit; utility bills)	Appellants sought to strike Price’s affidavit and admit utility-bill exhibit	Appellees objected to affidavit inconsistencies and offered hearsay objection to bills	Affidavit admission affirmed (no abuse); exclusion of utility-bill exhibit, even if error, was not reversible harm

Key Cases Cited

Katy Venture, Ltd. v. Cremona Bistro Corp., 469 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
KCM Fin. LLC v. Bradshaw, 457 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. 2015) (no-evidence summary judgment standard)
Madison v. Gordon, 39 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. 2001) (bona fide purchaser elements and constructive notice via visible, exclusive possession)
Janvey v. Golf Channel, Inc., 487 S.W.3d 560 (Tex. 2016) (TUFTA avoidance not effective against good-faith transferees for value)
Sysco Food Servs., Inc. v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. 1994) (elements for collateral estoppel)
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. 2004) (elements and high threshold for IIED; question often one of law)
Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619 (Tex. 1993) (definition of extreme and outrageous conduct for IIED)