Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:This case involves allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty between business associates. John Cathey sued Larry Meyer alleging that Meyer failed to pay him amounts promised for his work on various real estate development projects. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment in Meyer’s favor and granted his posttrial motion for discovery sanctions. A divided court of appeals reversed in part, affirmed in part, rendered in part, and remanded in part. HOLDING:The court reverses the court of appeals’ judgment in part and affirms it in part. The court renders judgment that Cathey take nothing on his fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims and that Meyer take nothing on his motion for sanctions. Not every relationship involving a high degree of trust and confidence rises to the stature of a fiduciary relationship. Here, there is no evidence of such a pre-existing relationship between Meyer and Cathey. The fact that Cathey trusted Meyer does not transform their business arrangement into a fiduciary relationship. The court of appeals’ reliance on Meyer’s and Cathey’s work on prior projects is misplaced. There is insufficient evidence that Meyer owed Cathey a fiduciary duty. Accordingly, Cathey cannot recover on his breach of fiduciary duty claims, the court concludes. There is sufficient evidence that Cathey ratified the fraud concerning the alleged compensation misrepresentations. The evidence shows that during their first project, Cathey agreed in writing to a compensation arrangement differing from the compensation terms that allegedly existed under the global agreement. The court considers Cathey’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding discovery abuse sanctions. Prior to their business arrangement, Cathey gave Meyer a resum”; which Cathey now admits misrepresented his work. Meyer sought out and deposed several individuals whose testimony contradicted the assertions made in Cathey’s resum”. Several weeks after the trial court rendered its final judgment, Meyer moved for sanctions pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 215.3 and 215.4(b), seeking reimbursement for the expenses incurred by way of his investigation into Cathey’s resume. The trial court granted the motion and awarded $25,978.73 as sanctions. Cathey contends that this award was an abuse of discretion because, by waiting until after trial to file his motion, Meyer waived his sanctions claim. The court agrees that Meyer waived any entitlement to sanctions. Under Remington Arms Co. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. 1993), waiver bars a trial court from awarding posttrial sanctions based on pretrial conduct of which a party “was aware” before trial; lack of “conclusive evidence” is not an excuse. OPINION:Per curiam.

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?


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.