Bever Properties, LLC and Jesse M. Taylor, D.D.S., P.A. v. Jerry Huffman Custom Builder, L.L.C., 05-13-01519-CV

Bever Properties and Taylor, P.A. sued JHCB, PPOC, Kirwan, and Cheung over defects, fraud, and related claims tied to a planned office-condominium project at 4708 Plano Parkway.
JHCB developed the property, formed the PPOC as the condo regime, and prepared a declaration describing the regime and signage rules, though initial representations suggested no strict condominium regime.
The Taylors were promised signage flexibility, but after closing Bever Properties acquired the unit and the PPOC imposed restrictions limiting stand-alone illuminated signage.
The trial court granted JNOV on fraud and related claims; the jury previously found common law and statutory fraud against JHCB and conspiracy by Cheung and the PPOC, as well as fiduciary breaches and damages.
On appeal, the court addressed whether reliance disclaimers and merger clauses in the sales agreement bar fraud claims, whether conspiracy claims survive, and whether TUCA-based fiduciary duties apply to Cheung.
The court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s JNOV, concluding the disclaimer-of-reliance clause was enforceable under the totality of circumstances and negated reliance for fraud claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the disclaimer of reliance bars fraud claims	Bever Properties argues law of the case requires reinstating fraud claims despite the disclaimer.	JHCB/others contend the disclaimer and merger clauses preclude justifiable reliance as a matter of law.	Disclaimers enforceable; fraud claims barred.
Whether conspiracy to commit fraud can survive when underlying fraud fails	If JHCB committed common law fraud, Cheung and PPOC conspiracies should stand.	Without underlying fraud, conspiracy claims fail as a matter of law.	Conspiracy claims fail without underlying fraud.
Whether Cheung owed a fiduciary duty to Taylor, P.A. under TUCA and derivative claims	Cheung owed fiduciary duties derivatively to Taylor, P.A. through Bever Properties, and TUCA sections create recoveries for adverse effects.	Taylor, P.A. was not a unit owner; no direct or derivative fiduciary duty under TUCA.	No TUCA-based fiduciary duty owed to Taylor, P.A.; unpleaded derivative claim rejected.
Whether punitive damages and attorney’s fees were properly denied given no actual damages	Damages awards existed; punitive and attorneys’ fees should follow from fraud.	Without actual damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees are unrecoverable.	No punitive damages or attorneys’ fees awarded; judgment affirmed.

Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Swanson, 959 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. 1997) (reliance element of fraud; contract may waive reliance through clear provisions)
Forest Oil Corp. v. McAllen, 268 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. 2008) (contractual disclaimer factors; negotiations; business awareness in assessing boilerplate clauses)
Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. 2011) (clarity and negotiation considerations for enforceability of reliance disclaimer)
Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1986) (law-of-case doctrine governs questions of law decided on appeal)
Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 372 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. 2012) (flexible application of law-of-case and contract interpretation in successive appeals)
Sbrusch v. Fort Bend Cnty Drainage Dist., 818 S.W.2d 392 (Tex. 1991) (standard for affirming JNOV; no-evidence review framework)