Beyer Properties, L.L.C. v. Jerry Huffman Custom Builder, L.L.C., 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9098

Background

Bever Properties and Taylor, the condo unit owner and lessee, sued Huffman, PPOC, Kirwan, and Cheung over signage disputes tied to a Plano office condominium project.
Huffman developed the project, sold three units (Bever, Kirwan, Cheung) and formed the Declaration restricting use of common elements and signage.
Plaintiffs alleged misrepresentations, concealment, and various tort and contract-based claims related to signage rights and governance by the condominium association.
PPOC and Cheung moved for summary judgment in Oct. 2009; the trial court granted those motions in Nov. 2009, but without stating grounds, and reserved attorney’s fees for later.
After additional rulings, the final judgment in March 2010 awarded attorney’s fees to Huffman, Kirwan, PPOC, and Cheung and denied other relief; appellants appealed the summary judgments and fee awards.
This Court reversed in part, remanded in part, and affirmed in part, noting certain grounds and fee issues required different disposition and that some claims were not properly disposed by the earlier motions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgments were proper given the grounds stated and lack of grounds in the order	Bever argues all grounds were not addressed and some facts create disputes.	Appellees contend grounds were adequately presented and supported.	Partial reversal; some grounds improper and remanded for proper disposition.
Whether appellees were entitled to attorney's fees under TUCA and the Declaration	Bever contends fee awards were improper or unsupported by a valid basis.	Appellees argue TUCA §82.161 and Declaration permit fees as prevailing party.	Fees awarded under some bases were reversed and remanded for reconsideration; not all bases were valid.
Whether appellees' December 2009 traditional and no-evidence motions properly disposed of fee issues	Bever asserts some fee-related grounds were not properly challenged and should be denied.	Appellees contend grounds were sufficient to dispose of fee claims.	No-evidence grounds inadequate; traditional grounds insufficiently specific; remand on fee issues.
Whether Kirwan and Cheung breached fiduciary duties	Bever alleges officers failed to adhere to the Declaration and acted self-servingly.	Kirwan/Cheung argue no breach shown and that the control lay with the association.	Trial court erred; court reversed to the extent of breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against Kirwan and Cheung.
Whether Huffman is liable for fraud or negligent misrepresentation	Taylor testified Huffman promised signage would not be restricted by association rules.	Huffman argues no reliance by plaintiffs on alleged representations; other parties asserted	Fraud/negligent misrepresentation findings against Huffman are contested; the court preserved issues for dispute; fraud/misrepresentation against Huffman partially reversed to appellants.

Key Cases Cited

Teer v. Duddlesten, 664 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. 1984) (Finality of interlocutory judgments merged in final judgment when no severance)
Pan Am. Petroleum Corp. v. Tex. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 324 S.W.2d 200 (Tex. 1959) (rule on when interlocutory judgments merge into final judgment)
In re Guardianship of Miller III, 299 S.W.3d 179 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (merger of interlocutory judgments in final judgment; no pet.)
Jarvis v. Rocanville Corp., 298 S.W.3d 305 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (no challenge to all possible grounds requires affirmance on unchallenged grounds)
Adams v. First Nat'l Bank of Bells/Savoy, 154 S.W.3d 859 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005) (no-pet; lack of challenge to all grounds results in affirmance on unchallenged grounds)
Tex. Integrated Conveyor Sys. v. Innovative Conveyor Concepts, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 348 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (grounds must be expressly presented in motion for summary judgment)
McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337 (Tex. 1993) (standard for identifying grounds in summary judgment)