Dennis Fuller and Lucie Lafreniere v. Rony-Claude Le Brun and Equinox Design, Inc., 616 S.W.3d 31

Plaintiffs Dennis Fuller and Lucie Lafreniere sued Rony-Claude Le Brun and Equinox Design, Inc. after problems with a newly constructed home, asserting multiple claims including two fraud causes of action (misrepresentation of workmanship/quality and that Le Brun was an architect).
Appellees moved for summary judgment on all claims; the trial court granted summary judgment on appellants’ tort claims (including fraud) but left other claims for trial.
The remaining claims were submitted to a jury. Question 1 asked whether Equinox failed to comply with the agreement (defined as constructing a defective and not code‑compliant home); the jury answered “No.”
Question 5 asked whether Equinox was unjustly enriched (instructing that unjust enrichment includes benefits obtained by fraud or undue advantage); the jury answered “No.”
The trial court entered a take‑nothing judgment on appellants’ claims. Justice Zimmerer concurred in affirming the summary judgment on most claims but dissented from the majority’s reversal as to the fraud claims, arguing the jury verdict rendered any summary‑judgment error harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whether summary judgment on fraud claim alleging misrepresentation of workmanship/quality was erroneous	Fuller: trial court erred in granting summary judgment on fraud based on workmanship/quality	Le Brun/Equinox: any error was harmless because jury later found no contract breach/defect	Zimmerer: Jury’s “No” to Q1 (no defective or non‑code‑compliant home) makes any error harmless; would affirm summary judgment on this fraud claim
2) Whether summary judgment on fraud claim that Le Brun misrepresented he was an architect was erroneous	Fuller: summary judgment wrongly disposed of fraud claim that Le Brun misrepresented professional status	Le Brun/Equinox: jury’s unjust‑enrichment finding and other verdicts render any prior summary‑judgment error harmless	Zimmerer: Jury’s “No” to Q5 (no unjust enrichment by fraud/undue advantage) renders any error harmless; would affirm summary judgment on this fraud claim
3) Whether subsequent jury findings can cure error in an earlier partial summary judgment	Fuller: prior summary‑judgment error affected his fraud claims and requires reversal	Le Brun/Equinox: subsequent jury verdicts, properly before the appellate court, cure any harm from the partial summary judgment	Zimmerer: Cites authority that subsequent events properly before the court can negate harm from a prior summary judgment and thus the summary judgment should be affirmed

Progressive Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Boyd, 177 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. 2005) (subsequent events properly before appellate court can render summary‑judgment error harmless)
Zarate v. Rodriguez, 542 S.W.3d 26 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017) (jury rejection of similar fraud claims can make earlier summary‑judgment error harmless)
Casa Del Mar Ass’n, Inc. v. Gossen Livingston Assoc., Inc., 434 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (findings that preclude essential elements of claims render earlier rulings harmless)
Harpst v. Fleming, 566 S.W.3d 898 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018) (jury finding of compliance negates recovery on related breach claims)
Smith v. Moody Gardens, Inc., 336 S.W.3d 816 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (jury rejection of statutory claim can negate common‑law recovery when elements overlap)
Italian Cowboy Partners v. Prudential Ins., 341 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. 2011) (sets out elements of common‑law fraud)