1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 3 9 3 - CV
T R I NI T Y R I VE R E S T AT E S , L . P . AP P E L L ANT V . PAT DI FONZO , ZE NA DEVEL O PM ENT APPE L L EE S COR P OR AT I ON, Z E NA L AND D E V E L O P M E N T , L .P ., M A R IO S I NAC OL A & S ONS E XC AVA T I NG, IN C ., A U S T IN B R ID G E & R O A D , L .P ., AUS T I N B R I DGE & R OAD, I NC . , AN D TUR NE R, COL L I E & BR ADE N, I NC.

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 1 41ST DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on I n t w o i ss ues , A ppe l l antTr i ni t y Ri verEs t at es , L. P. ( “TRE” ) ap pea l s t he t r i al court ’ s or der s gr ant i ng sum m aryjud g m ent s i n f avorofA ppel l ees Pat2 ... S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 3 8 .1 (g ) ( d e c la r in g , “ [i] n a c iv il c a s e , th e c o u rtw ill

a c c e p t a stru e th e fa c ts s ta te d u n l e s sa n o th e r p a rtyc o n tra d i c ts th e m ” ). 2 D i Fonz o, Zena D eve l opm entCor por at i on, an d Zen a L and D eve l opm ent , L. P. (c o l l e c ti v e l y , “D e v e l o p e r” ); M a r io S i n a c o l a & S o n sE x c a v a ti n g , I n c .(“M a ri o ” ); A us t i n Br i dge& Road, L. P. an d A us t i n B r i dge& Road, I nc. ( col l ec t i vel y,

“ A u s ti n ” ); a n d T u rn e r, C o l l i e & B ra d e n , I n c . (“T u rn e r” ). W e a ffir m . II . F a c tu a la n d P ro c e d u ra lH i s to ry The part i es do not di sp ut e the fol l ow i ng: 2TR E ow ns an undev el oped po rt i on o fl a nd i n t heTr i ni t y Es t a t e sd i vi s i on o ft heC i t y ofBen br oo k . I n 2000, D i Fonz o, ac t i ng a s Pr es i den toft he Zena Cor po r at i on, ap pr oac hed TRE and
r equ es t ed a d r ai nage eas em entupon TRE’ s pr ope rt y f ort he dev el opm entof Tr i ni t y Gar de ns — a p ort i on o fp r op e rt y a dj a c e ntt o TRE ’ sl a nd . Al t hou gh TRE
r ef used D i Fonzo’ s r equest , devel opm enton t he T r i ni t y G ar dens p roj ect
com m enc ed. Devel ope rhi r ed Tur nert o bet he eng i nee rf ort he Tr i ni t y Gar den s pr oj ect , M ar i o t o excavat e t he l and, and A ust i n t o pave t he r oads. I n D ecem ber20 02 , TR E fi l ed sui tagai nstTr i ni t y G ar dens, L. P. ; C hoi ce H o m e s, In c .; Z e n a G P 1 L L C ; D e v e l o p e r; M a ri o ; U ti l i ti e s, In c . (d/b /a H & S U ti l i ty C o n tr a c to rs); an d A u sti n for fl o o d i n g tha t oc c u rr e d o n T R E ’s p rop e rt yi n l a te Jul y orea r l y August20 0 2 tha ta l l ege dl y r es ul t ed f r om t he Tr i ni t y Gar den s devel opm ent . D ur i ng t he sui t ’ s pendency , C hoi ce H o m e s and D evel oper3 ... I n l at eram end ed pet i t i ons , TRE dr oppe d t he w aterco de ca us esof

act i on as t o M ar i o, A ust i n, and Tur ner but added causes of act i o n for gr oss negl i gence and com m on l aw di ver si on of w at eras t o al l oft he part i es. 3 i ndi cat ed t o T R E th a t T u rnerhad added a r evi si on t o t he dr ai nage pl ans t hat
ca l l ed f ora r et ent i on po nd up on t he pr ope rt y of Tr i ni t y G ar den s; t hatt he pond
w asei t herco ns t r uct ed ori n t he pr oce ssofbe i ng c ons t r uct ed; an d t hatt he i ns t a l l a t i on o ft hep on d s ho ul d c ur e TRE ’ se xc e s sw a t e rp r ob l e m s . TRE di sm i ssed t he case and el ect ed t o “w ai tand s e e w het heri n f actsuch i n s ta l l a ti o n d i d c u re s u c h d ra i n a g e p ro b l e m s .” I n M ar ch 200 5, T RE f i l ed anot hersui tagai ns tD eve l ope r , M ar i o, A us t i n, and Tur ner f ornegl i gent and i nt ent i onal di ver si on of w at er , nui sance, t r espass, a nd vi ol at i ons oft he w at ercode. 3T R E ’s f o u rt h a m e n d e d p e t it io n c la im e d in p e rt i n e n t pa rttha t: B a s e d o n th e d a m a g e t o [ T R E ’s ] p ro p e rtyc a u s e d b y[A p p e l l e e s ’] de ve l op m e nta c t i vi t i e s , [ TRE ] f i l e d s ui ta ga i ns t [ Appe l l e e s ] i n 2002. I n a spi r i tofcom pr om i se, and t o avoi d t he expen se ofcont i nued l i ti g a ti o n , [T R E ] a g ree d to pro v i d e [A p p e l l e e s] w i th th e o p p o rt u n i ty t o r e c t i f yt h e s i t u a t i o n c a u s i n g t h e f l o o d i n g o f[ TR E ’ s ] p r o p e rt y. [ TRE] a gr e e d t ha ti tw ou l d di s c on t i nu e p ur s ui ng l i t i ga t i on a ga i nst [ A ppel l ees] onl y i fand unti l [ A ppel l ees] took the necessar y r em edi al st epst o pr eve ntt he f l oodi ng on t o [ TRE’ s] pr ope rt y. The [ r ] et ent i on pond w hi ch w asco ns t r uct ed as the al t er nat i ve t o t he ea se m ent w hi ch [ TR E] w as unw i l l i ng t o sel l w as w hol l y i ne ffec ti ve. [ A ppe l l ee s] i nt end ed tha tt he [ r ] et ent i on po nd w oul d s ol ve t he fl o o d i n g an ti c i p a ted b ythe c o n s tr u c ti o n o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t; how eve r , dur i ng pe r i odsofs i gni f i ca ntr ai nf al l t he [ r ] et ent i on po nd4

st and s dry w hi l e [ TRE’ s] pr ope rt y c ont i nue s t o b e dam age d by f l oodi ng. I n r esponse, D evel oper , Tu r ner , M ar i o, and A ust i n each f i l ed no- evi dence
a n d t r a d it io n a l m o t io n sf o rs u m m a ryju d g m e n t . T h e t r ia l c o u rtg r a n t e d t h e ir
m ot i ons . Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed. I I I . Di sc us si on TRE as se rt s i n i t s f i r sti ss ue t hatt he t r i alco urter r ed by g r ant i ng no e v i d e n c e s u m m a ryj u d g m e n ts in fa v o r o f D e v e l o p e r a n d T u rn e r a sto T R E ’s neg l i ge nc e, nui sa nce , t r es pas s, an d gr os s neg l i gen cecl ai m s, an d i n f avo rof M ar i o and A ust i n as t o T R E’ s nui sance and t r espass cl ai m s. I n i t s second i ssue, TR E a r g u e st h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r r e d b yg r a n t i n g s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t si n f avo r ofD evel oper , Tu r ner , M ar i o, and A ust i n, as t o al l ofTR E’ s cl ai m s— each m oved f ort r adi t i onal sum m ar y j udg m ento n t he gr oun ds o fl i m i t at i ons and no dam ages. A . St andar d ofRev i ew O u r re v i e w o f a s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t i sd e n o v o to d e te rm i n e w h e th e r a part y’ s r i ghtto pr eva i l i s es t abl i sh ed asa m att erofl aw . Tex . R. Ci v. P. 1 6 6 a (c ); Ca th e yv. Bo o th , 9 00 S . W . 2d 3 39 , 3 41 ( Tex . 1 99 5) . W hen, as her e, a t r i al co urt ’ s or dergr ant i ng sum m ary j udgm entdoesnots pec i f y t he gr ounds
r el i ed upon, t he r evi ew i ng c ourtm us taf f i r m s um m ary j udgm enti fan y oft he
s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t g ro u n d sa re m e ri to ri o u s . F MProp s. Op erati

ngCo . v. City5

o f A us tin , 2 2 S .W .3 d 8 6 8 , 8 7 2

– 7 3 (T e x . 2 0 0 0 ); Sta r- Telegra m, I n c . v. D oe , 9 1 5 S .W .2 d 4 7 1 , 4 7 3 (T e x . 1 9 9 5 ). W hen a part y m ove s f or su m m ary j udgm ent unde r bot h r ul es 166 a( c) an d 166 a( i ) , w e w i l l f i r str evi ew t he t r i al c ou rt ’ s j udgm entunde rt he st and ar dsof
ru l e 1 6 6 a (i ). F

o rd Mo to r Co . v. Ri

d g wa y, 1 3 5 S .W .3 d 5 9 8 , 6 0 0 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ). W h e n re v i e w i n g a n o -e v i d e n c e s u m m a r yju d g m e n t, w e e x a m i n e th e e n ti re
r e c o r d in t h e lig h tm o s tf a v o r a b le t o t h en o n m o v a n t , in d u lg in g e v e ryre a s o n a b le i n fe re n c e a n d re s o l v i n g a n y d o u b ts a g a i n s t th e m o ti o n . Sudanv. Su dan , 199 S. W . 3d 291, 292 ( Tex. 2006 ) . I ft he nonm ova ntbr i ngs f or w ar d m or e t han a sci nt i l l a ofpr obati ve evi dence t hat r ai ses a genui ne i ssue ofm at er i al f act , t hen
a n o -e v i d e n c e s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t i sn o t p ro p e r. Moore v. K MartCor p. , 981 S . W . 2d 26 6, 26 9 ( Tex . A pp. — S an A nt oni o 19 98 , pet . deni ed) . W e r evi ew a no- evi den ces um m ary j udgm entf orev i den ce t hatw oul d e nab l e r ea so nab l e a nd fa i r-m i n d e d j u ro rsto d i ffe r i n th e i r c o n c l u s i o n s . Ham i lton v. W

i l son , 249 S. W . 3d 425, 426 ( Tex. 2008 ) ( ci t i ng City of Kel ler v. W i l son , 168 S. W . 3d 802, 8 2 2 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 )). B. D am ages I n T R E’ s f i r st i ssue, TR E assert s t hat t he t r i al courter r ed by gr ant i ng each Appe l l e e ’ sn o- e vi de nc e m ot i on f ors um m a ry j ud gm ent . As a s ub

- i s s ue , TRE4 ... Each A ppel l ee m oved forno- ev i d e n c e sum m ary j udg m enton each

el em entofea ch ofTRE’ s ca us esofac t i on.

5 ... Ryf f eli s t he so l e l i m i t ed part nerofTRE.
6 ... K ham m ash i s a r egi st er ed pr of essi onal engi neeri n t he S t at e ofTexas.
7 ... W e not e, how eve r , t hat TRE d i d not di r ec t t he t r i alco urtt o a ny sp ec i f i c ev i den cew i t hi n t he af f i dav i t s t o s upporti t s cl ai m ofda m age s but r at herasked t he t r i al courtt o “see Ryf f el ’ s and K ham m ash’ s af f i davi t s. ” S ee Nawasv. R & S Vend i ng , 92 0 S . W . 2d 73 4, 73 7 ( Te x . A pp. — H oust on [ 1st

6 c o m p l a i n sth a t th e tri a l c o u rt e rre d b yg ra n ti n g T u rn e r’sm o ti o n t o s tri k e T R E ’s
s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t e v i d e n c e . 1. Bac kground TR E al l eged var i ous causes ofact i on bel ow — negl i gent and i nt ent i onal di ver si on of w at er , nui sance, t r espass, vi ol at i on of t he w at e r c o d e , gr oss
n e g l i g e n c e , a n d co m m o n l a w d i v e rsi o n — a n d so u g h t da m a g e s fo r e a c h o f i ts
c l a i m s . In re s p o n s e , e a c h A p p e l l e e fi l e d a n o -e v i d e n c e m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ry j udgm ent , as se rt i ng, am ong o t hert hi ngs , t hatt her e w asno e vi den ceof dam age s f oran y ofTRE’ s ca us esofac t i on. 4C onsequ ent l y, t he bur den shi ft ed t o T R E t o r ai se a genu i ne i ssue of m at er i al f acton t he dam ages el em entofeach
o f i ts c l a i m s i n o rd e r to a v o i d s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t. S eeT e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (I) . I n an atte m p t t o m e e t i ts b u rd e n o n d a m a g e s, T R E atta c h e d to i ts
re s p o n s e J a m e sR y ffe l ’s 5 a n d A h m a d K h a m m a s h ’s 6 af f i davi t s and ar gued t hat t he af f i davi t s cont ai ned evi dence of dam ages t o suppo rteach ofTR E’ s cl ai m s. 7D i st . ] 19 96 , no w r i t ) ( st at i ng t hatcourt s ofappeal s ar e not r equi r ed t o sear ch

t he r ecor d w i t hou tgui dance f r om appel l antt o det er m i ne w h et heri thas p rod u c e d ev i d e n c e rai sing a g e n u i n e i ss u e o f m a teri a l fa c t o n t h e elem e n ts c h a l l e n g e d b ya p p e lle e s ); b u ts e eJo hn s o nv. Bre wer & Pr itch a rd , P. C. , 73 S. W . 3d 193, 207 ( Tex. 200 2) ( hol di ng t hat app el l ant ’ s r es pons e, w hi ch di d not con nec tf ac t s t o t he ch al l eng ed el em ent s, w asad equ at e f orco ns i der i ng w h e th e r a fa c t i s s u e h a d b e e n ra i s e d ).

8 ... K h a m m a sh ’s affi d a v i t state d i n p e rt i n e n t pa rt : The Tr i ni t y Gar de ns s i t e p r i ort o de vel opm entw asco m pos ed of a p p rox i m a tel y2 3 ac res co v e red w i th v e g e tati o n , m o stl yg ras s w i th l i g h tt r e e c o v e ra n d t w o l a r g e p o n d so fc o m b i n e d v o l u m e of 6 5 0 ,5 0 4c u b ic f e e t . . . . T h e s e re t e n t io n p o n d sw e r e c o m p le t e ly e l i m i n a te d a sp a rt o f th e T ri n i tyG a rd e n s A d d i ti o n d e v e l o p m e n t. A m uch sm al l er ( app r oxi m at el y 50, 000 cub i c f ee t ) r et ent i on po nd f r om w hi ch t he upp erhal foft he devel o p m entar ea f l ow s, w as c o n s tru c te d . . . . Pr i ort o t he devel opm ent of t he Tri ni t y G ar dens pr opert y t he or i gi nal r a i ns t or m r un of fc oe f f i c i e nto ft hea r e a w a sa pp r ox i m a t e l y . 3. Af t e rd e ve l op m e ntt her un of fc oe f f i c i e nto ft hea r e a i s. 55. Th er ef or e, t he am oun t of r uno f f f r om any r ai nst or m w i l l i n c reas e 7 A f t era t hor ough r evi ew ofRyf f el ’ s aff i dav i t , w e e nco unt er ed t he f ol l ow i ng pert i nent port i on on dam ages: I n m y opi ni o n, t he pr opert y ofTr i ni t y R i verEst at es, LP has been dam age d be t w ee n $1. 8 and $2. 2 m i l l i on do l l ars b as ed upon t he r edu ct i on i n va l ue o fthe ove r al l s i t e t hatha s bee n c aus ed by t he i nab i l i t y t o de vel op a num ber of l ot s t her eon an d t he nec es si t y, w hen t he pr ope rt y i s dev el ope d, t o i ns t al l a r et ai ni ng po nd. H ow ever , aft era si m i l arr evi ew ofK ham m ash’ s af f i davi t , al t hou gh t her e w as evi dence t hatm i ght r ai se a f acti ssue as t o an i nj ur y t o T R E, not hi ng add r essed TR E’ s dam ages. 8dr am at i cal l y over t he ent i r e Tr i ni t y G ar dens devel oped ar ea att i m es

w hen t her e d oesnotex i sta non- sa t ur at ed so i l co ndi t i on. I ti s m y opi ni on bas ed upon t he f or ego i ng t hatt he Tr i ni t y Gar den s dev el opm ents eve r el y r edu ce d upst r ea m pe rvi ousar ea s and el i m i nat e d t he pr e vi ou s l y e xi s t i ng r e t e nt i on po nd s . . . . I t i s m y opi ni o n th att he devel opm entoft he T r i ni t y G ar dens A ddi t i on has i ncr eased t he cum ul at i ve vol um e and f r equen cy ofst or m w at er r uno f font o th e pr opert y ofTr i ni t y R i verEst at es, LP. I ti s m y f u rt h e ro p in io n t h a t[T u r n e r ] f a ile d t o a d e q u a t e lyp r o v id e f o rt h is i n c re a s e d ru n o ff i n i ts e n g i n e e rin g p l a n si t p re p a re d . . . . A ddi t i on al l y, i ti s m y pr of es si ona l opi ni on t hat[ Tur ner ] kn ew or sh o u l d h a v e kn o w n tha t i n c rea se d w a ter run o ff fr o m the T ri n i ty G a rde n d e v e l o p m e n t w o u l d ad v e rse l yaffe c t t h e p rop e rt yo f T ri n i ty R i verEst at es, LP. A d d i ti o n al l y, i ti s m y pr of essi onal opi ni on t hat t he rete n t i on po nd con st r uct ed as partoft he upst r eam devel opm enthas had no [ e] f f ecti n m i t i gat i ng t he i ncr eased w at er r u n o f fo n t o t h e p r o p e rt y o f T r in it y R iv e r E s t a t e s , L P . B a s e d o n a ll oft he f or e g oi ng, i ti s m y pr of essi onal opi ni on t hat[ Tu r ner ] w as neg l i gen ti n f ai l i ng t o pr ovi de ade qua t e s t or m w at erdr ai nag e p l ans f o rt h e d e v e lo p m e n ta n d t h a tt h isn e g lig e n c e h a sre s u lt e d in subst ant i al i ncr eased f l o o d i n g t o t he pr opert y ofTr i ni t y R i ver Es t at es , LP. 8 T u rn e r fi l e d o bj e c ti o n sa n d a m o ti o n to s tri k e t h e p o rt i o n o f R y ffe l ’s af f i davi tpert ai ni ng t o dam ages o n t he gr oun ds thati tw as concl usor y and t hat R y ffe l w a s n o ta n e x p e rt; i t a l s o fi l e d a m o ti o n to s tri k e K h a m m a s h ’se n ti re a ffid a v i t o n t h e g ro u n d sth a t i t w a su n re l i a b l e a n d i rre l e v a n t. T h e tri a l c o u rt sust ai ned T ur ner ’ s obj ect i ons. I n suppo rtofi t s ar gum en t th a ti tr ai sed a f acti ssue r egar di ng dam ages ast o i t s cl ai m s aga i ns tea ch A ppe l l ee , TRE d i r ec t s ouratt ent i on t o Ryf f el ’ s and9 ... T R E also re fers u s to a p o rt i o n o f R y ffel ’s d e p o sit i o n atta c h e d to

T u r n e r ’s m o t io n . T R E a r g u e st h a te v e n ift h e p o rt i o n o fR y f f e l’s a f f id a v it p e rt a in in g t o d a m a g e sw a ss t r u c kb yt h e t r ia l c o u rt , t h e s a m e e v i d e n c e is c o n tai n e d w i th i n the su m m a ry j u d g m e n t ev i d e n c e p roffe red b yT u rne r i n i ts m o ti o n f o r s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. H o w e v e r, in a n o -e v i d e n c e m o ti o n f o r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t, th e n o n -m o v a n t b e a rsth e b u rd e n o f p ro d u c i n g c o m p e te n t s u m m a ry j udgm entev i den ce ; t her ef or e, i n t hi s ca se, TRE bor e t he bur den ofpr oduc i ng p ro p e r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t e v i d e n c e , n o t T u rn e r. S eeT e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (i ). A ccor di ngl y, pur suantt o t hi s r ul e, w e have not consi der ed t he evi dence att ac he d by T urne r i n co nj un cti on w i t h i t s m oti on . S eeS ou thtex 66 Pi pel i ne Co. , Ltd. v. Spoor, 2 3 8 S .W .3 d 5 3 8 , 5 4 2 n .1 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 7 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (s ta ti n g e v e n th o u g h th e m o v a n t i n a n o -e v i d e n c e s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t a tta c h e d e v i d e n c e , th e a p p e l l a te c o u rt d i d n o t c o n s i d e r th e e v i d e n c e ). Furt her m or e, even i f w e w er e t o consi derRy f f el ’ s deposi t i on t est i m ony, i t , l i ke Ryf f el ’ s af f i dav i t , i s concl us ory a nd t her ef or e d oesnotqua l i f y a s com pet ent sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence.

10 ... H avi ng de t er m i ned t hatKham m as h’ s af f i dav i tdi d no ti ncl ude evi den ceofda m age s, w e n ee d noti ncl ud e i ti n t he r em ai ni ng di sc us si on pert ai ni ng t o dam ages. 9 K h a m m a sh ’s affi d a v i ts 9a n d a r g u e st h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r r e d b yg r a n t i ng Tu r ner ’ s m ot i on t o st r i ke t hem f r om TR E’ s sum m ary j udg m entevi dence. 10 S p e c if ic a lly , T R E a r g u e st h a tR y f f e l, a st h e s o le lim it e d p a rt n e ro fT R E , f a lls unde rt he “Pr ope rt y O w nerRul e” and t her ef or e Ryf f el ’ s opi ni on a s t o t he val ue o f h i s p ro p e rtyra i s e sa fa c t is s u e a s to d a m a g e s . T h e A p p e l l e e s , h o w e v e r, a rgu e that R yf f el ’ s af f i davi ti s concl usor y and t her ef or e does notconst i t ute
com pet entsum m ar y j udg m entevi dence.10

2. A ppl i cabl e Law A f f i davi t s support i ng and opp osi ng a m ot i on f orsum m ary j udg m entm ust
s e t fo rth fa c ts , n o t l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s . S e eMerc er v. D a o ranCo rp ., 676 S . W . 2d 5 8 0 , 5 8 3 (T e x . 1 9 8 4 ); A MSConstr. Co. v. W ar m Sp r i ngs Rehab. Foun d. , I nc. , 9 4S .W .3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 7 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u sC h ri s ti 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.). A c o n c l u s o ry st at em enti s onet hatdoe s no tp r ovi de t he unde r l yi ng f ac t s t o s upportt he concl usi on, and i ti s i nsuf f i ci entt o cr eat e a quest i on of m at er i al f actt o def eat
s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t. IHS Cedar s Trea tm ent

C tr. of D es oto, Tex. , I

nc. v. Mas on , 1 4 3 S .W .3 d 7 9 4 , 8 0 3 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ); McI ntyre v. Ram i

rez , 109 S. W . 3d 741, 74 9– 50 ( Tex . 20 03 ) . To const i t ut e com pet entsum m ary j udg m entevi dence, t he t es t i m ony m us tpr ovi de an exp l ana t i on l i nki ng t he bas i s of t he con cl us i on to t h e f a c ts . W

in ds o r v. Max well, 1 2 1 S .W .3 d 4 2 , 4 9 (T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 3 , p e t. d e n i e d ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt o f T e x a sh a sh e l d th a t p ro p e rtyo w n e rsw h o a re f am i l i arw i t h t he m ar ketval ue oft hei rpr opert y, i ncl udi ng rea l pr opert y, m ay tes ti fy a s to the i r op i n i o n s re g a rding this v a l u e , e v e n tho u g h the y d o n o t qu a l i fy
a s e x p e rtw i tn e ss e s a n d ev e n t h o u g h th e yw o u l d n o t be all o w e d to te sti fy
re g a rd i n g th e m a rk e t v a l u e o f p ro p e rty th e y d o n o t o w n . S ee Redm an Hom es, I nc. v. Ivy , 9 2 0 S .W .2 d 6 6 4 , 6 6 9 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ); Po r ra sv. Cra ig , 675 S. W . 2d 50 3, 50 4– 05 ( Tex . 19 84 ) . The P r opert y O w nerRu l e i s based on t he pr em i se11 ... Furt her m or e, ev en i fw e w er e t o c ons i derRyf f el ’ s dep os i t i on

t es t i m ony, Ryf f elad m i t s t hatheha s had no a ppr ai sa l doneon t he pr ope rt y. 11 t hatpr ope rt y ow ner s or di nar i l y k no w the m ar ke tva l ue oft hei rpr ope rt y a nd th e re fo re h a v e a s o u n d b a s i sf o rt e s t ify i n g a sto i ts v a l u e . S ee Porras , 675 S .W .2 d a t 5 0 4 ; S tate v. Ber ger, 43 0 S. W . 2d 55 7, 55 9 ( Tex . C i v. A pp. — W aco 1 9 6 8 , w r itre f ’d n .r .e .) . F o ra p r o p e rt yo w n e rt o q u a lif ya sa w it n e s s , h is t es t i m ony “m us ts how t hati tr ef er s t o m ar ke t , r at hert han i nt r i ns i c o rs om e ot herv al ue ofthe pr opert y. ” Porr as , 675 S . W . 2d at504– 05. Thi s r equ i r em ent i s us ual l y m eti ft he ow nert es t i f i est hathei s f am i l i arw i t h t he m ar ke tva l ue of h isp r o p e rt y . “ M a r k e tv a lu e ” is t h e p r ic e p r o p e rt yw o u ld b r in g ifo f f e r e d f o rs a le b yo n e w h o d e s i r e s , b u tisn o to b lig a t e d t o s e ll, a n d isb o u g h tb yo n e w h o is
u n d e r n o o b l i g a ti o n to b u y . Exxon Cor p. v. Mi ddleton , 613 S. W . 2d 240, 246 (T e x . 1 9 8 1 ). 3 . A n a ly s is A ss u m i n g w i th o u t de c i d i n g tha t t h e P rop e rt yO w n e r R u l e ap p l i e s to R y ffe l , R y ffe l ’sa ffid a v i t i sc o n c l u s o rya n d th e re fo re n o t c o m p e te n t s u m m a ry j udg m entevi dence t hatr ai ses a f acti ssue as t o dam ages. 11 See Ryl and Group, Inc . v. Hood, 9 2 4S .W .2 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 2 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ) (sta ti n g “ [c ]o n c l u s o ry a ffid a v i ts a re n o t e n o u g h to ra i s e fa c ti s s u e s ” ); Resi den ti al D ynam i

cs, LL Cv. Loveless , 186 S. W . 3d 192 , 1 98 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2006, no p et . ) ( st at i ng12

“[a ] c o n c l u so ry s tate m e n t i s o n e tha t do e s n o t pro v i d e th e u n d e rl y i n g fac ts to
s u p p o rt th e c o n c l u s i o n ” ). Th e onl y t est i m ony i n R yf f el ’ s af f i davi tpert ai ni ng t o d a m a g e s w as t hat “Tr i ni t y Ri verEs t at es , LP hasbe en dam age d be t w ee n $1. 8 and $2. 2 m i l l i on dol l ar s based upon the r educti on i n val ue oft he over al l si t e. ” H ow ever , i n or der f or an ow ner ’ s t est i m ony t o qual i f y und ert he Pr opert y O w nerRu l e, t he ow ner
m u s t te s ti fy a s to th e m a rk e t v a l u e . S ee Por ras , 675 S . W . 2d at504 ( hol di ng t hati n a s ui tf orpe r m ane ntda m ag e t o l and , t he m ea su r e o fda m age s i s t he d if f e r e n c e in t h e m a r k e t v a lu e o f t h e la n d im m e d ia t e ly b e f o r e a n d im m e d ia t e ly
a fte r th e i n j u ry ). T h e e v i d e n c e h e re c o n ta i n sn o b a s i sf o r R y ffe l ’so p i n i o n . W e ca nnotde t er m i ne f r om t he af f i dav i t w het her t he r edu ct i on i n va l ue i s bas ed on
m a rk e t, in tri n s i c , o r s o m e o th e r v a l u e . S e ei d. at 505 ( st at i ng t hati n or derf or a p r o p e rt yo w n e rt o q u a lif ya sa w it n e s st o t h e d a m a g e st o h isp r o p e rt y , h is t e s t i mo n ymu s ts h o w t h a ti tr e f e r st o ma r k e t , r a t h e rt h a n i n t r i n s i c o rs o me o th e r va l u e o f t h e p ro p e rt y ). T h e refo re, be c a u se R y ffel ’s tes ti m o n yas to dam age s i s con cl us ory, an d be ca us e TRE di d notof f eran y ot herev i den ceof dam ages, w e hol d t hatthe tr i al courtdi d not er rby gr ant i ng D evel oper ’ s, Tur ner ’ s, M ar i o’ s, an d Aust i n’ s no- evi den cem ot i onsf ors um m ary j udgm enton th e g rou n d tha t T R E d i d n o t r a i se a g e n u i n e i ss u e o f m a teri a l fac t as to d a m a g e s o n e a c h o f i ts c l a i m s . F u rth e rm o re , b e c a u s e R y ffe l ’s a ffid a v itis13

con cl us ory, w e h ol d t he t r i alco urtdi d notab us e i t s di sc r et i on bygr ant i ng Tu r ner ’ s m ot i on t o st r i ke. A ccor di ngl y, w e over r ul e TR E’ s f i r sti ssue. Becau se A pp e l l e e s c o n c l u sive l yest abl i shed ent i t l em entt o j udg m entbased
on no - evi dence of dam ages as t o each ofTR E’ s cl a i m s, w e n eed not addr ess T R E’s r em ai ni ng i ss u e . S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 4 7 .1 (s t a t in g o p in io n ss h o u ld
a d d re s s o n l yi s s u e sn e c e s s a ryto fi n a l d i s p o s i ti o n o f a p p e a l ). I V . Concl us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d T R E ’sd i s p o s i ti v e is s u e , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j udg m ent s.

B OBM CC OY J U S T I C E
PA N EL: C A YC E, C. J. ; D A U PH I N O T and M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: M a y 28, 2009