Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Lorraine Ma�on went to law school with Manuel Solis and the two were casual friends. After leaving law school, they did not talk to each other for three years. They met up again after that, and Solis met with Ma�on to discuss hiring her at his firm, which he did. Ma�on became dissatisfied with her working conditions, namely her schedule, docket, secretarial arrangements or arrangements with outside counsel. Ma�on filed suit alleging that Solis had made fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations during the course of the pre-employment negotiations. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Solis, but the 11th Court of Appeals remanded the case for trial. At trial, there was evidence that Solis routinely gave Ma�on Fridays off, offered to compensate her for extra work she performed and paid for her sick leave after Ma�on had been on the job for only a month. Further testimony indicated that despite Solis’ open-door policy, Ma�on did not tell him that she was dissatisfied. Nor did Ma�on take advantage of Solis’ offer to continue working at the firm after she resigned so that she could look for another job. Ma�on claimed Solis misrepresented: 1. her work schedule; 2. her ability to bring her young son to the classroom maintained for Solis’ children at the office; 3. her responsibility for only waiver divorce cases; 4. her access to a full-time secretary; 5. her obligation to attend late-night meetings; and 6. her right to have her privacy maintained. She argued that Solis negligently misrepresented the facts relating to the discharge of her predecessor; that Solis was in the process of hiring additional attorneys; that he did not advertise family law cases; and the nature of his outside counsel arrangement. On remand, the jury found for Solis. HOLDING:Affirmed. Ma�on first claims that she has procedurally established her claims as a matter of law. She argues that the trial court’s initial finding that no genuine issue of material fact exits (that is, in granting summary judgment for Solis) remains binding, even though the 11th Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, and cannot be contest on remand. This court notes that when an appeals court remands without special instructions, the lower court is to review the entire case, and there were no special instructions in the 11th Court of Appeals’ remand in this case. Consequently, Ma�on’s arguments on lack of trial court jurisdiction or plenary power, the law of the case doctrine, waiver/election of remedies or statutory bar are without merit. Nor does judicial estoppel apply because Solis did not successfully maintain his initial position between the trial court’s ruling in his favor to the 11th Court of Appeals’ reversal. As applied to her trial, Ma�on contests the trial court’s refusal to grant her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court determines that the evidence does not support a finding of fraud because there is no evidence that Solis made any of the statements with knowledge that they were false. The sum of the circumstantial evidence supports the conclusion that Solis was genuinely concerned with Ma�on’s welfare and working conditions. The court adds to this review of evidence the fact that while Solis may not have disclosed that there were “mandatory” meetings at the firm, Solis was willing to accommodate employees who could not attend. The evidence permitted the trier of fact to question whether such an employer would either knowingly or recklessly mislead a friend and potential employee into accepting a position at the firm, the court rules. As for Ma�on’s argument that Solis misrepresented conditions under which Ma�on would be employed, the court points out that the sort of false information contemplated in a negligent misrepresentation case is a misstatement of existing fact, not a promise of future conduct. Even if Ma�on’s predecessor was fired after instead of before Ma�on accepted employment, Ma�on could not have justifiably relied on this misrepresentation. There was no evidence that Solis did not intend to hire additional attorneys. The statement about advertising family law cases was not false, because there is evidence Solis told Ma�on that the firm generated family work through its advertising for immigration law cases. Finally, there was evidence that outside counsel was indeed used, or at least available, for contested divorce cases, contrary to Ma�on’s assertions. The court finds no evidence of a fiduciary duty between Solis and Ma�on, even if the pair had a long relationship and Ma�on may have believed they shared absolute trust in each other. The court next turns to whether the trial court should have granted Ma�on’s motion for new trial. The court overrules this point of error based on the same evidence reviewed in the discussion of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict section. Ma�on then argues that in scores of instances, Solis made improper jury argument, all of which had to do with Ma�on’s unemployment claim or her unwillingness to find suitable employment after resigning. The court rejects Ma�on’s arguments because the statements go to damages only. Because the jury never reached the issue of damages (having found no liability on Solis’ part), it cannot be said that any improper jury argument had an effect on the jury’s findings. One statement, where Ma�on was said to have brought a frivolous lawsuit, was undoubtedly prejudicial and inflammatory, but would not have persuaded a juror or ordinary intelligence to reach a verdict contrary to the one it rendered but for the argument. The court rejects several evidentiary rulings by the trial court due to failure to preserve or identify them. Another challenge is rejected because, like the jury argument, it goes to damages, an issue the jury did not reach. OPINION:Adele Hedges, C.J.; Hedges, C.J., Frost and Guzman, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.