Robert Tyson, Carl and Kathy Taylor, Linda and Ron Tetrick, Jim and Nancy Wescott, and Paul and Ruthe Wilson v. Demar Boren and Lorena Yates, 04-14-00824-CV

Plaintiffs were elderly lifetime-lease residents of a Texas senior community (originally "Las Aves Retreat," later "El Viaje"); they paid lump-sum sums and low annual fees and alleged reliance on managers and Freeman, an attorney/owner
Plaintiffs sued individual managers (Boren and Yeates), Freeman, and related entities for DTPA violations, common-law and statutory fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and gross negligence after their leases were rejected in bankruptcy and recharacterized as tenancies at will
Bankruptcy court held the lifetime leases unenforceable; Plaintiffs received termination notices and alleged loss of life savings and other damages
At the district-court summary-judgment hearing, defendants moved to exclude Plaintiffs’ summary-judgment evidence as unauthenticated and sought summary judgment; the court ruled to exclude Plaintiffs’ evidence
The district court granted summary judgment to the individual defendants, severed the individual-defendant claims, and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing and opportunity to cure

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Exclusion of plaintiffs’ summary-judgment evidence	Boyd: evidence (deposition excerpts, bankruptcy transcript, attorney letter) was admissible; exclusion was legal error	Mosty: excerpts and documents were unauthenticated and thus inadmissible	Trial court excluded Plaintiffs’ evidence (leading to dismissal of opposition)
2. Summary judgment granted before discovery complete	Boyd: summary judgment was premature; Freeman’s deposition and other discovery were critical	Defs: argued discovery was adequate and motion ripe	Trial court granted summary judgment to individual defendants despite Plaintiffs’ contention discovery was incomplete
3. Denial of motion for opportunity to remedy / rehearing	Boyd: court should have allowed cure/rehearing (TRCP 166a(f)); McConathy squarely allows use of deposition excerpts	Defs: maintained prior rulings and objections	Trial court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing and opportunity to amend evidence
4. Severance of individual-defendant claims	Boyd: severance was improper and prejudicial because individual claims were interwoven with corporate claims and would impose financial hardship on Plaintiffs	Defs: sought severance (procedural tactic to permit immediate appeals)	Trial court granted severance of individual defendants, making those judgments immediately appealable

McConathy v. McConathy, 869 S.W.2d 341 (Tex. 1994) (Supreme Court held certain deposition excerpts may be considered despite prior contrary authority on authentication)
Dubois v. Harris County, 866 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. App. 1993) (court relied on this pre-McConathy authority to challenge admissibility of deposition excerpts)
Perry v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 902 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. App. 1995) (nonmovant may use movant’s own discovery responses against the movant)
Leyendecker & Assocs. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. 1984) (corporate agents can be personally liable for tortious acts committed in scope of employment)
Kingston v. Helm, 82 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. App. 2002) (discusses agent liability and related principles)
Castleberry v. Branscum, 721 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. 1986) (standards on veil-piercing and when corporate form does not shield individual liability)
State Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Cotner, 845 S.W.2d 818 (Tex. 1993) (severance standard: when claims are separable and whether severance furthers administration of justice)