Marcia Hare Slack, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of H.M.H. Dairy, Inc. v. Ralph Preuss and Preuss & Associates, PLLC, 06-21-00018-CV

Background

Plaintiff Marcia Hare Slack sued accountant Ralph Preuss and Preuss & Associates (Preuss Defendants) alleging breach of fiduciary duty, statutory fraud, fraud by nondisclosure, civil conspiracy, and aiding/abetting related to documents executed December 31, 2012.
On December 31, 2012, Marcia signed an Agreement and warranty deeds at Ralph’s office transferring various real property interests after Martha Hare (her mother) decided to reallocate assets before anticipated 2013 estate-tax changes; Marcia testified she was distraught and on Xanax that day.
The residuary trust created by Isom Hare’s will had been funded with specific assets (tracts B and S, stock, cash) so the trust’s funded property equaled the estate-tax exemption; many tracts Marcia later complained about were not shown in trust funding evidence.
Ralph prepared tax returns and accounting work for family entities and for Mark (trustee/executor), but denied Marcia was his client and had not prepared her returns; Mark retained Ralph for trust/estate administration.
The trial court granted the Preuss Defendants’ combined traditional and no‑evidence summary judgment; Marcia appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no evidence of a fiduciary duty to Marcia and no evidence of damages caused by the Preuss Defendants.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ralph owed Marcia a fiduciary duty	Marcia argued an informal fiduciary/confidential relationship existed from long family dealings and Ralph’s work for family entities and the Dairy	Ralph denied Marcia was his client; defendants argued no formal fiduciary relationship and no informal confidential relationship supported by the record	No fiduciary duty: no evidence Marcia was a client or had the requisite long‑standing reliance or special relationship
Whether Marcia proved damages/injury from Preuss Defendants’ acts	Marcia claimed she was divested of a one‑third beneficial interest in multiple tracts because of signing the Agreement/deeds induced by Ralph’s misrepresentations/omissions	Defendants argued there was no evidence the residuary trust owned the disputed tracts before Dec. 31, 2012, so Marcia had no one‑third trust interest to lose and therefore no damages	No damages: no evidence trust owned those tracts and no evidence Marcia suffered injury from signing the Agreement or deeds
Viability of related claims (statutory fraud, fraud by nondisclosure, civil conspiracy, aiding/abetting)	Marcia asserted these claims flowed from Preuss Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations/omissions and assistance to Mark	Defendants contended absence of reliance, absence of agreement/meeting of minds with Mark, and no evidence of assistance or encouragement of unlawful acts	Dismissed: no evidence of reliance for fraud, no evidence of agreement for conspiracy, and no evidence of assistance for aiding/abetting; all claims fail for lack of causation/damages

Key Cases Cited

Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (summary‑judgment standard)
Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (inferences and evidence‑viewing rules on summary judgment)
Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2013) (order of addressing no‑evidence grounds first)
Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. 2005) (informal fiduciary/confidential relationship principles)
First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. 2017) (elements of breach of fiduciary duty)
Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. 1996) (client/beneficiary distinction where trustee retains professionals)
Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 823 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1992) (when confidential relationship is question of law vs. fact)
King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (definition of "less than a scintilla" of evidence)