Khiem H. Trinh v. Central River Healthcare Group, P.L.L.C. and Loann T. Trinh, 03-19-00393-CV

Central River Healthcare Group (CRHG) founded 2003; siblings Khiem H. Trinh (plaintiff) and Loann T. Trinh (defendant) were managers; relationship deteriorated by 2010 and suit filed in 2015 alleging breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty among other claims.
Trial evidence included testimony from Khiem, Loann, and their father (deposition), plus texts, emails, and business/tax records indicating profit allocations (generally 95% to Loann, 5% to Khiem; one year 50/50) and significant monetary contributions by family members.
Key dispute 1: whether Loann and CRHG agreed to pay Khiem an annual salary (~$110–$120k) — some testimony and a deposition suggested a proposal; Loann denied any agreement and explained deposition testimony may have been suggestion-affected.
Key dispute 2: whether Loann complied with fiduciary duties to Khiem — Khiem argued Loann benefited while he bore tax burdens and contributed funds; Loann pointed to evidence that Khiem relinquished interest in the business and that tax allocations were based on returns prepared with his participation.
The jury answered No to Question 1 (no salary agreement) and Yes to Question 4 (Loann complied with fiduciary duty); the trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment and this appeal challenges the factual sufficiency of those findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of an agreement to pay Khiem an annual salary	Testimony (deposition, father, sister) that Loann proposed ~$110–$120k	Loann denied any agreement, deposition memory refreshed by suggestion, proposal ≠ mutual agreement; witnesses impeached	Jury’s finding of no agreement affirmed — evidence not against great weight of the evidence
Whether Loann complied with fiduciary duty to Khiem	Loann benefited while Khiem contributed money and paid tax on profits, receiving nothing in return	No proof Loann “required” tax allocations; Khiem participated in tax filings; evidence that Khiem forfeited ownership/management interests	Jury’s finding that Loann complied affirmed — supporting evidence not so weak as to make verdict manifestly unjust

Ortiz v. Jones, 917 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. 1996) (factual-sufficiency review requires weighing all evidence)
Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (jury is sole judge of witness credibility and evidence weight)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (plaintiff must show adverse jury finding is against great weight and preponderance to prevail on factual-sufficiency challenge)
McAllen Hosps., L.P. v. Lopez, 576 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2019) (proposal alone does not establish mutual agreement required for contract)
Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986) (verdict will not be set aside unless contrary to overwhelming evidence)
Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. 2000) (jury charge governs sufficiency review when no party objects)
City of Austin v. Chandler, 428 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014) (standard when verdict rests on a party’s burden: evidence so weak that verdict is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust)
Ellis Cnty. State Bank v. Keever, 888 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. 1994) (appellate court need not detail sufficiency when affirming jury verdict)