Brauss, Eric W, Christine Brauss v. Nixdorf Parties, 411 S.W.3d 614

Case centers on Brauss-controlled real estate partnerships and a settlement distributing assets via a receiver; trial court approved a broad settlement and issued substantial damages against Brauss, Martin, TRA, and related entities.
Plaintiffs included eight investors asserting breach, fiduciary duty, alter ego, and veil-piercing claims; two groups (Nixdorf and Song-Winkler) intervened, with Song-Winkler later struck.
The trial court entered a final judgment awarding over $65 million to the plaintiffs and over $48 million to the Nixdorf appellants, appointing a receiver, and determining ownership and proceeds of Sugar Land project interests.
Brauss and Martin settled, then intervened to enforce the settlement; the court did not file written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
On appeal, only some parties challenged the judgment; the court reversed part of the judgment against Martin for the Nixdorf appellants and affirmed the rest.
The court ultimately rendered, and the judgment on appeal was entered August 13, 2013.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence against Brauss and Martin for Nixdorf claims	Nixdorf asserts substantial evidence of fraud and misrepresentation	Brauss/Martin argue insufficiency or lack of direct dealings	Evidence supports fraud/fraudulent inducement against Brauss; Martin liability lacks evidentiary support
Martin's guaranty and note maturity alteration	Watercrest pled valid guaranties; Martin violated agreement	Martin preserved no affirmative defense in response	Affirmative defense not preserved; judgment against Martin affirmed except as to the guarded issue
Standing to challenge damages against co-defendants	Nixdorf/Horseshoe claimants assert cross-claims affected by judgment	Interests not injuriously affected; lack standing	Nixdorf/Horseshoe have no standing to challenge other group’s damages
Intervention by Song-Winkler and mootness	Intervention sought relief on promissory notes and related claims	Subsequent separate judgments resolved those claims; mootness applies	Moot with respect to some issues; others not moot; court upholds denial of intervention
Sugar Land distribution allocations	Distributions should reflect capital contributions including non-cash credits	Distribution per partnership agreement; accounting records support allocations	Court’s Sugar Land distribution allocation sustained

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal sufficiency and evidence review standard for appellate courts)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (sufficiency review; great weight standard when reviewing factual findings)
Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. 2001) (fraud elements in contractual context; fraudulent concealment considerations)
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1976) (adverse inferences from exercising Fifth Amendment in civil cases)
Union Carbide Corp. v. Union Carbide, 273 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. 2008) (justiciable interest and intervention framework; proper scope of appellate review)
Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. 1990) (abuse of discretion standard in ruling on intervention/joinder)
St. Joseph Hosp. v. Wolff, 94 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing credibility and factual findings in bench trials)