Second Court of Appeals
Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of July 30, 2018.
NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.
Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.
DeAngelis v. Protective Parents Coalition, No. 02-16-00216-CV (Aug. 2, 2018) (Pittman, J., joined by Meier, J.; Gabriel, J., concurs without opinion).
Held: The Texas Citizens Participation Act applies to Appellants’ Rule 202 petition for pre-suit discovery. Because Appellants did not meet their burden under the TCPA to establish the prima facie elements under Rule 202, the trial court correctly dismissed their petition. However, the trial court erred by applying the justice-and-equity modifier in section 27.009 of the TCPA in determining the amount of trial attorney’s fees to award to Appellees and by not awarding appellate attorney’s fees to Appellee Carless. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Walterscheid v. Walterscheid, No. 02-17-00062-CV (Aug. 2, 2018) (Pittman, J., joined by Sudderth, C.J., and Gabriel, J.).
Held: In this dispute arising out of a cattle investment in which Appellants provided approximately $1 million to Appellee to deliver to a third party who would then take the funds to purchase cattle and raise them for future sales, but who ultimately had no cattle or funds—original investment funds or profits—to return to Appellants even though it was undisputed that Appellee had actually delivered the funds to the third party, we hold that the evidence is factually and legally sufficient to support the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law that no enforceable oral contract exists between Appellants and Appellee because of a lack of definite, material terms of repayment. We also hold that the evidence is factually and legally sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of no common-law fraud or fraud by nondisclosure and no civil theft. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s final judgment.