Gray v. Entis Mechanical Services, L.L.C., 343 S.W.3d 527

Gray, operating as Lighthouse Electric, worked as a subcontractor for Entis Mechanical Services at a Tomball medical facility from Sept 2008 to Dec 2008.
Gray billed Entis for electrical work totaling $30,894.90, which remained unpaid.
Gray filed a mechanic's lien on March 25, 2009, after giving notice of intent to lien the Tomball Property.
Entis paid the amount due by check on April 2, 2009, but Gray refused to cash it or release the lien.
Entis sued Gray for fraudulent lien under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 12.002 on April 21, 2009.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Entis, dismissing the lien and awarding damages and fees; Gray appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Entis proved Gray's intent to cause financial injury.	Gray argues the evidence does not establish intent to cause financial injury as a matter of law.	Entis contends the evidence, including multiple liens, a full-payment check refused, and related communications, shows intent to injure financially.	Reversal; summary judgment not conclusive on intent; remand for trial.

Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. 1999) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2000) (burden shifting after movant proves entitlement)
Cullins v. Foster, 171 S.W.3d 521 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (elements must be conclusively proven to obtain summary judgment)
Walker & Assoc. Surveying, Inc. v. Roberts, 306 S.W.3d 839 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2010) (fraudulent-lien burden requires conclusive proof of elements)
Preston Gate, L.P. v. Bukaty, 248 S.W.3d 892 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (intent to cause financial injury not self-evident from conduct)