Rancho La Valencia, Inc. v. Aquaplex, Inc.
357 S.W.3d 137
Tex. App.2011Background
- A 2005 jury verdict against Rancho La Valencia, Inc. (Rancho) and Charles R. 'Randy' Turner on fraud related to the MSA; Aquaplex’s fraud claim followed.
- This Court previously held Aquaplex could not recover more than one remedy and that attorney's fees for breach of the MSA were unsupported after election of remedies.
- Upon rehearing, issues of declaratory relief, lis pendens, and injunctive relief were addressed; the declaratory relief and injunctive relief were reversed in part.
- The Texas Supreme Court held there was legally sufficient evidence of fraudulent intent and damages for fraud under the MSA but remanded to address damages, potential remittitur, punitive damages, and factual sufficiency issues not decided earlier.
- This panel's analysis focuses on preexisting issues from the initial appeal, including ratification, exclusion of evidence, and whether the MSA breach could be decided as a matter of law.
- The court remands for a new damages trial consistent with the Supreme Court’s instructions, noting punitive damages must be determined by the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ratification submission to jury | Rancho argued for jury consideration of JVA ratification. | Appellees elected to pursue fraud under the MSA, not JVA. | No abuse; ratification issue immaterial to judgment. |
| Exclusion of evidence about funding the $100,000 | Evidence of funding offer relevant to fraud/intent. | Timing and relevance render it inadmissible; ruling proper. | No abuse of discretion; evidence excluded properly. |
| Declaration that MSA breach was matter of law | Breaching status should be determined by jury, not court. | Rule 166(g) permits pretrial rulings on legal matters. | Proper under Rule 166(g); no error. |
| Crime-fraud exception and admission of attorney testimony | Attorney testimony about fraud should be privileged unless crime-fraud proven. | Evidence admissible under crime-fraud exception; privilege waived due to conduct. | Waived preservation; no reversible error. |
| Factual sufficiency of the fraud finding | Evidence overwhelmingly showed Turner intended to perform MSA. | Credibility and weight for jury; substantial evidence supports fraud finding. | Not clearly wrong; evidence supports jury’s fraud finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aquaplex, Inc. v. Rancho Valencia, Inc., 297 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. 2009) (remanded for damages remittitur, possible trial on damages)
- Rancho La Valencia, Inc. v. Aquaplex, Inc., 253 S.W.3d 728 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2007) (fraud damages under MSA; JVA considerations; liability issues)
- Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng'rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (remittitur/remand when damages are improperly calculated)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse of discretion standard; evidentiary rulings)
- In re Nitla, 92 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. 2002) (disqualification of counsel; mandamus context)
- Walden v. Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc., 97 S.W.3d 303 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (counsel disqualification considerations)
- Richmond Condos. v. Skipworth Commercial Plumbing, Inc., 245 S.W.3d 646 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008) (preservation of error; motions in limine)
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. McCardell, 369 S.W.2d 331 (Tex. 1963) (general evidentiary rule)
- Pate v. Tex. Dept. of Transp., 170 S.W.3d 840 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005) (preservation after ruling; waiver context)
- Plas-Tex, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. 1989) (passage about weight of conflicting evidence)