1
... S ee Te x. R. App
. P. 47. 4. 

## CO URT OFAPPEA LS SE COND DIST RIC TO F TE XAS FORT WORTH NO. 2
- 0 8
- 3 5 6
- CV GAR Y E AR L W AL K E R AP P E L L ANT V
. SOU THW EST BASKETBAL L , L L C APPE L L EE S A N D N BD L FO R T W O R TH , LLC

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CO URT AT LAW NO
. 3 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppe l l antG ar

y Ea r l W al ke r

ap pea l s a t ak e- not hi ng j udgm enti n fav or of appel l ees Sou t hw estBasket bal l , LLC ( “So ut hw est ”) an d N BD L FortW ort h, LLC ( “ N B D L ” )
. We a f

f i r m. N BD L a nd Sout hw est pl ann ed t o pl ac e a n NB A D eve l opm entLe agu e b a sk e tb a l l fra n c h is e , th e F o rtW o rt h F l y e rs, i n F o rtW o rt h
. T h e F o rtW o rt h2

Fl yers w ere t o b e o perat ed by NBD L w hi ch w as , i n t ur n, co nt rol l ed by S outhw est . Sou t hw estow ned ei ghty percentof N BD L. D avi d K ahn foun ded S outhw est , and i s t he sol e m anager of bot h S outhw estand N BD L. By S ept em ber of 20 05 , W al ker had m ade i nvest m en ts i n So ut hw est t ot al i ng $ 15 0, 00 0. I n A ugu st20 06 , W al ker agreed t o i nvestan addi t i onal $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 i n NB DL fo l l o wi n g a c o n fe re n c e c a l l wi t h K a h n a n d T i m Be r r y , o f N3 Texa s H oops , LL C ( “N3") , dur i ng w hi ch t he part i es di sc us se d fi nan ci al an d ma r k e t i n g p ro b l e ms NB DL wa s e x p e r i e n c i n g i n t h e F o rtW o rt h ma r k e t . NB DL con t i nue d t o e xpe r i en ce a l ack o f progres s i n t he FortW ort h m ar ke t , an d a n o t h e r c o n fe re n c e c a ll w a s h e ld d u r in g w h ic h W a lk e r re q u e s t e d t h a th is A ugus t2006 i nve st m entbe ret ur ned
. Kahn prom i se d he w oul d do eve r yt hi ng h e co u l d to re tu rn W a l k e r’ s i n v e stm e n t. I n D ecem ber

20 06 , So ut hw estw a s i n the process of br i ngi ng i n a new i nvest or w ho pl anned t o i nvest $1 , 40 0, 00 0 i n S outhw est , a port i on of w hi ch Sout hw es ti nt end ed t o i nve st i n N BD L. A ft er prepa r i ng an am end ed ope rat i ng ag re e m e n t t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e n e w i n v e s t o r , Ka h n e m a i l e d a c o p y of t he prop os e d a gre e m e ntt o W a l k e r for e xe c ut i on. On o r

b e fore Dec e m be r

14, 2 0 0 6 , th e fo l l o w i n g e m a i l e x c h a n g e e n s u e d : E m a i l fro m K h a n to W a l k e r:3

[G ]a ry , i f y o u h a v e n ’t a l re a d y , p l e a s e s e n d i n th e s i g n e d s i g n a tu re pag e from t he doc um entdi st r i but ed t o [ Sout hw es t ] i nve st ors on 1 1 /3 0 . [W ]e ’re a i m i n g to c l o s e to d a y . . . . Repl y from W al ke r

t o Khan: P le a s e s e n d in w r it in g c o n fir m a t io n o f o u r c o n v e rs a t io n , t h a tT im [ N 3] a nd I w i l l ge tour m one y ba ck by [ t he] en d of [ t he] m ont h. Then I w i l l f i nd t he em ai l t om or row an d e xec ut e b y [ t he] en d of [ t he] da y. R e s p o n s e fro m K h a n to W a l k e r: C onfi r m ed. Pl ea se s en d t he si gne d s i gna t ure p age t o L ai ni e Di l l on at503- 220
- 248 0. W e shoul d be ab l e t o s end ch ec ks t o yo u a nd Ti m [ N 3] w i t hi n 4 8 h ours of t he cl ose. W al k e r e ve nt ua l l y s i gn e d t he a m e nd e d op e ra t i ng a gre e m e nta nd t he new i nve st or w as broughti n. In J a n u a ry 2 0 0 7 , N B D L i n fo rm e d W a l k e r th a t b e fo re i t w o u l d re tu rn W al ker ’ s A ugu st2 00 6 i nvest m ent , h e w oul d need t o si gn an LLC U ni tPurchase A gree m entan d Rel ea se of Cl ai m s, w hi ch i nc l ud ed an of fer by N BD L t o buy back t he addi t i onal uni t s of ow nershi p i n N BD L t hatW al ker purchased i n A ugu st 2 0 0 6 . W a l ker , how ever , rej ect ed t he of fer by m aki ng a coun t er - offer w hi ch cha nge d t he l ang uag e i n t he rel ea se of cl ai m s. N B D L w oul d notag ree t o t he c h a n g e s a n d refu se d to re tu rn W a l k e r’ s i n v e stm e n t. W al ker sued appel l ees for

breach of

cont ract . A ft er

a b ench t r i al betw een K ahn and W al ker , t he t r i al co urten t ered a j udg m entfor appel l ees t hatW al ker2
... A n d e rso n v . C i ty o f S e v e n P o i n ts , 8 0 6 S .W .2 d 7 9 1 , 7 9 4 (T e x . 1 9 9 1 ). 3
... O rt i z v. Jones , 9 1 7 S .W .2 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 2 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ); C at al i na v. Bl asdel , 8 8 1 S .W .2 d 2 9 5 , 2 9 7 (T e x . 1 9 9 4 ). 4 t ak e n ot hi ng. W al ke r t hen f i l ed a m ot i on for new t r i al , w hi ch w as de ni ed by t he t r i al cou rt . Th e t r i al courtent ered f i ndi ngs of factand concl usi ons of l aw . W a lk e r file d t h is a p p e a l. W a l k e r c h a l l e n g e s th e l e g a l a n d fa c tu a l s u fficie n c y o f th e tri a l c o u rt’s f i ndi ng t hatno c ont rac tw as for m ed betw ee n W al ke r a nd a ppe l l ee s w hereby appel l ees w oul d ret ur n W al ker ’ s A ugu st20 06 i nvest m ent . W al ker argues t hat t h e e v id e n c e c o n c lu s iv e ly e s t a b lis h e s t h a tt h e re w a s s u c h a c o n t ra c t , a n d , in t he al t er nat i ve, t hatt he t r i al cou rt ’ s fai l ure t o fi nd su ch a c ont rac ti s aga i ns tt he o v e rw h e l m i n g w e i g h t o f e v i d e n c e to th e c o n tra ry . Fi ndi ngs of

factent ered i n a case t r i ed t o t he cour t have t he sam e force and di gni ty as a j ury’ s answ ers t o j ury quest i ons. 2 The t r i al co urt ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa c t a re re v i e w a b l e fo r l e g a l a n d fa c tu a l s u fficie n c y o f th e e v i d e n c e to s u p p o rt t hem by t he sa m e s t and ards t hatare app l i ed i n revi ew i ng e vi den ce s upport i ng a j u ry ’s a n s w e r. 3 I f a party i s at t acki ng t he l egal suf fi ci ency of an adverse fi ndi ng on w hi ch t he party ha d t he burden of proof, an d t here i s no e vi dence to su pportt he fi n d i n g , w e re v i e w a l l th e e v i d e n c e to d e te rm i n e w h e th e r th e c o n tra ry4
... D o w C h e m . C o . v . F ra n c is , 4 6 S .W .3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 1 (T e x . 2 0 0 1 ); S t er ner

v. M arat hon Oi l Co. , 7 6 7 S .W .2 d 6 8 6 , 6 9 0 (T e x . 1 9 8 9 ).

5
... Pool v. Ford M ot or Co. , 715 S
. W
. 2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986 ) (op. on re h ’g ); G arza v. A l vi ar , 3 9 5 S .W .2 d 8 2 1 , 8 2 3 (T e x . 1 9 6 5 ); I n re K i n g ’s E sta te , 1 5 0 T e x . 6 6 2 , 6 6 4
– 6 5 , 2 4 4 S .W .2 d 6 6 0 , 6 6 1 (1 9 5 1 ). 5 propo si t i on is e sta b l i shed as a m at t er of l aw . 4 W hen revi ew i ng a n a ss ert i on t hatt he evi dence i s fact ual l y i nsuffi ci entto supp ortan adverse fi ndi ng, w e set a s i d e th e fi n d i n g o n l y i f, a fte r c o n s i d e ri n g a n d w e i g h i n g a l l o f th e e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd p e rti n e n t to th a t fi n d i n g , w e d e te rm i n e th a t th e fi n d i n g is s o c o n tra ry t o t he over

w hel m i ng w ei ght of al l t he evi dence, t hat t he answ er shoul d be set as i de and a new t r i al ordered. 5 W a lk e r c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 6 e m a il e x c h a n g e b e tw e e n h im a n d K a h n co n c l u sive l y es tab l i sh e s a w ri tten a g ree m e n t o n th e p a rto f N B D L to rei m burse W al ke r

for hi s A ugus t2006 i nve st m entof $75, 000 i n e xch ang e f or hi s exe cut i on of

t he am end ed o pe rat i ng a gree m ent . There w as t es t i m ony o f fe re d a tt r ia l, h o w e v e r , s h o w in g t h a tN B D L d id n o tu n d e rs t a n d W a lk e r ’s e m a il t o m ean t hathe w as of fer i ng t o exchan ge hi s si gn a tu re o n t he am ended o p e ra t in g a g re e m e n tfo r re t u r n o f

h is A u g u s t2 0 0 6 in v e s t m e n t . In fa c t , a tt r ia l, K ahn f l at l y rej ect ed t hi s i nt er pret at i on of t he em ai l exchang e: Q
. D i d yo u und erst and M r . W al ke r ’ s e- m ai l t o m ea n t hatyou w ere a gree i ng t o e xch ang e h i s si gna t ure o n t he A m end ed O perat i ng A gree m enti n e xch ang e f or – – i n exc han ge for

[ Sout hw es t ] pa yi ng M r . W a l k e r

$75, 000?6
... S e e g e n e ra lly H u b b a rd v . S h a n k le , 138 S
. W
. 3d 474, 481 (Tex.

A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 4 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (l i s ti n g e l e m e n ts fo r v a l i d c o n tra c t). 6 A
. A b so l u tel y n o t. Ka h n fu rt h e r

t e s t i f i e d t h a ta tt h e t i m e o f t h e De c e m b e r

2 00 6 e m a i l e xch ang e w i t h W a l k e r , t he p a rt i e s u nd e rs t oo d t ha tt o un w i nd t he Augu s t2006 i nve st m ent , t he purcha se ag ree m entan d rel ea se of cl ai m s w oul d ne ed t o be e x e c u t e d . H e s a id t h a tw h e n h e w ro t e in h is e m a il t o W a lk e r t h a t , “ W e s h o u ld be abl e t o send checks t o you and T i m w i t hi n 48 hours of t he cl ose, ” he w as si m pl y confi r m i ng t hatW al ke r ’ s exe cut i on of t he am end ed ope rat i ng a gree m ent w oul d putN BD L i n a fi nan ci al posi t i on to unw i nd t hati nve st m entaft er t he re le a s e o f

c la im s w a s e x e c u t e d . T h u s , t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o tc o n c lu s iv e ly e s ta b l i s h a n a c c e p ta n c e o f W a l k e r’s o ffe r, o r a m e e ti n g o f th e m i n d s , to s u p p o rt e i th e r a w ri tten o r ora l co n tra c t. 6 B e c a u se the ev i d e n c e d o e s n o t co n c l u sive l y es tab l i sh the elem e n ts necessar

y for t he t r i al court t o fi nd a contract betw een W al ke r an d ap pel l ees fo r t h e re t u r n o f

W a l k e r ’s A u g u s t2 0 0 6 in v e s t m e n tin e x c h a n g e fo r h is si gnature on t he am ended o perat i ng agreem ent , w e over r ul e appel l ant ’ s l egal su ff i c i e n c y c h a l l e n g e . M o re o v e r , a ft e r re v i e w i n g a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n t he record rel evantt o t he t r i al court ’ s fi ndi ng t hatno contractw as for m ed betw een7

W al ke r and appel l ee s, w e can notsay t hatt he t r i al co urt ’ s fi ndi ng i s aga i ns tt he g re a t w e i g h t o f th e e v i d e n c e . W e o ver r ul e W al ke r ’ s four i ss ues . The t r i al cou rt ’ s j udgm enti s af fi r m ed.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; M C C O Y and M EI ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Dec e m be r 23, 2009