Kiger v. Balestri
376 S.W.3d 287
Tex. App.2012Background
- Kiger sues Balestri for breach of fiduciary duty following a 2001-private inquiry about Excel Communications connections.
- Balestri is a licensed transactional attorney who worked at Attenza.com, then Block & Balestri; later left practice.
- Kiger proposed a multi-level marketing electricity venture; Balestri provided limited, non-legal information about contacts.
- No evidence shows Kiger formed a company, obtained licenses, hired employees, or solicited customers for the idea.
- Balestri later invested in Stream Energy and attended meetings; Kiger did not invest and later disputed fiduciary duties.
- Kiger alleged an implied attorney-client relationship existed and that confidential information was disclosed to Stream Energy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of an attorney-client relationship | Kiger asserts implied relationship based on conduct. | Balestri contends no agreement or intention to form a client relationship. | No attorney-client relationship shown; judgment affirmed. |
| Breach of fiduciary duty elements | Kiger argues implied duty existed via relationship and breach by revealing information. | Balestri argues no fiduciary duty owed; no breach proven. | No breach shown; no fiduciary duty established; judgment affirmed. |
| Summary judgment standard application | Kiger contends evidence raised issues of material fact. | Balestri contends no evidence supports elements of claim. | Traditional and no-evidence summaries upheld; no genuine fact issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Mr. Property Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.1985) (standard for summary judgment review)
- Gen. Mills Rests., Inc. v. Texas Wings, Inc., 12 S.W.3d 827 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2000) (no-evidence standard; probative evidence required)
- Neary v. Mikob Properties, Inc., 340 S.W.3d 578 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011) (no-evidence summary judgment standard)
- Tanox, Inc. v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, 105 S.W.3d 244 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (attorney-client relationship defined; fiduciary duties in legal context)
- Valls v. Johanson & Fairless, L.L.P., 314 S.W.3d 624 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (implied attorney-client relationship must be objective, not subjective)
- Span Enters. v. Wood, 274 S.W.3d 854 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (objective standard for attorney-client relationship implications)