Christopher F. Bertucci, as of the Estate of Anthony R. Bertucci, and Derivatively on Behalf of American Affordable Homes & Properties, Inc.; American Affordable Homes, Lp; Town Vista Development, LLC; Town Vista Terrace, Inc.; And Midcrowne Senior Slp, LLC v. Eugene L. Watkins, Jr., 709 S.W.3d 534

Anthony Bertucci and Eugene Watkins formed multiple business entities to develop low-income housing projects, with Bertucci providing funding (60% interest) and Watkins providing management (40% interest).
Watkins managed the business funds through his own separate account, raising concerns about commingling and unauthorized use of the entities’ money.
After Bertucci’s health declined, his son Christopher, with power of attorney, discovered potential financial improprieties and removed Watkins from management; litigation ensued over $4.5 million in escrow.
Bertucci (through his estate and Christopher) brought both individual and derivative claims against Watkins for breach of fiduciary duty and related causes.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Watkins on all claims. The court of appeals reversed as to some claims and remanded others; both sides sought further review in the Texas Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court addressed issues regarding briefing waiver, fiduciary duties, statutes of limitations, and evidentiary rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of derivative claims by inadequate briefing	Briefing sufficiently raised derivative claims	Briefing did not specifically address each entity	No waiver; remand to address merits
Fiduciary duty owed to Bertucci individually	Watkins owed him direct fiduciary duties as manager	Fiduciary duties ran only to entities, not individuals	No individual duty; summary judgment reinstated
Summary judgment on limitations	Fact issues exist on discovery of Watkins’s actions	Bertucci should have known or discovered any misuse earlier	Fact issues remain; summary judgment improper
Admissibility of expert report and Dead Man’s Rule	Accountant’s report was erroneous; Dead Man’s Rule bars defendant’s testimony	Report was relied upon and testimony was corroborated or not barred	Plaintiff can challenge report and testimony barred under Dead Man’s Rule

Walker v. Blue Water Garden Apartments, 776 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. 1989) (Jurisdiction determined by appellant’s bona fide attempt to invoke appellate review)
ERI Consulting Eng’rs, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. 2010) (Adequate briefing required for appellate review)
Ross v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 462 S.W.3d 496 (Tex. 2015) (Failure to brief may result in waiver)
Ritchie v. Rupe, 443 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. 2014) (Officers/directors owe duties to corporation, not fellow officers or shareholders)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (Inference cannot be based on equally consistent opposing facts)
S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996) (Discovery rule and duty of investigation in fiduciary context)
Lewis v. Foster, 621 S.W.2d 400 (Tex. 1981) (Purpose and application of the Dead Man’s Rule)