Tan Duc USA v. Jimmy Tran
01-14-00539-CV
Tex. App.Oct 21, 2015Background
- Tran and Dang married in 2007 after signing a prenuptial agreement that listed the Memorial Drive property (11440 Memorial) value at $5.8M; title to that property was later split into four 25% undivided interests.
- Dang convinced Tran to move to Vietnam (2008), put him in management roles with companies she controlled, and induced him in 2010 to deed his 25% interest in the Memorial property to Tan Duc Construction (an entity tied to Dang).
- Tan Duc made mortgage payments for a time but stopped in 2010; the property was foreclosed in 2011.
- Tran sued in Texas for divorce, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the Fraudulent Transfer Act, and related claims; the trial court refused to recognize a foreign default judgment Dang asserted from Vietnam.
- After a six-week jury trial, a Texas jury found Dang committed fraud by clear and convincing evidence and awarded Tran $650,000 in actual damages and $50,000 in exemplary damages; this brief is Tran’s appellee/response defending that judgment on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tran) | Defendant's Argument (Dang) | Held (trial result / appellee position) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility & reliability of Dr. Lehrer’s damages testimony | Lehrer testified as an economic-damages expert using accepted methods and independent documentary data (prenup valuations, HCAD, appraisals, foreclosure price, bank records). | Lehrer acted as a real-estate appraiser without following appraisal standards; his methods and use of HCAD/trend data are unreliable and speculative. | Court permitted Lehrer as a damages expert; appellee argues his methods were proper and any methodological defects are harmless. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for $650,000 damages for Tran’s 25% Memorial interest | Multiple independent valuations (prenup $5.8M, other documents $4.8–$5.77M, foreclosure figures, loan amounts) support the jury award using reasonable damage formulas. | Using foreclosure/net-debt math, Tran’s 25% share could be at most ~$250,000; no competent evidence supports $650,000. | Appellee demonstrates independent documentary evidence yields quarter-share figures in the range of the jury award; therefore, evidence suffices to support $650,000. |
| Dependency of damages award on existence of an agreement re: Tan Duc interests | Fraud claim was pleaded and submitted independently; damages were awarded on that fraud claim (Question 9), not contingent on finding an enforceable agreement. | The fraud/damages finding was contingent on an agreement to grant Tran interests in Tan Duc; jury rejected formation, so damages are immaterial/unsupported. | Appellee: jury could find promissory fraud or reliance without enforceable contract; verdict was supported and not rendered immaterial by any other answer. |
| Jury charge / damages instruction error | Charge included proximate-cause, fair-market-value, and property-value instructions; appellee preserves that any omission was waived at charge conference and any error was harmless. | Charge lacked a proper measure-of-damages instruction (PJC 115.19) and thus requires reversal. | Appellee argues Dang failed to preserve the charge objection at conference; even if error, it was harmless because independent evidence supports the award. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. 1995) (harmless error and charge issues in jury trials)
- C & R Transport v. Campbell, 406 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. 1966) (limitations on overturning verdicts for conflicting or immaterial jury answers)
- Ernst & Young, L.L.P. v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 51 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2001) (elements and proof of fraud principles)
- Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers, 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (promissory fraud recognized as actionable)
- In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. 2001) (definition/elements of fraud)
- St. Joseph Hosp. v. Wolff, 94 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. 2002) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence against jury charge)
- Hirschfeld Steel Co. v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 201 S.W.3d 272 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (reviewing evidence sufficiency when charge not objected to)
- MCN Energy Enters., Inc. v. Omagro De Colombia, LDC, 98 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (standards on reviewing jury instructions and evidence sufficiency)
- Solutioneers Consulting, Ltd. v. Gulf Greyhound Partners, Ltd., 237 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (expert-opinion and damages-related evidentiary principles)