### NUM BER 13-08- 0033 6-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
EL IA C ORN EJO LOP EZA ND L EON ELL OPEZ , A pp ellan ts,
v . NOR M A L IND A C AST EL LA NO, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 38t h Dist rict C ou rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es R o d rig u eza n d G arza

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appe l l a n t s E l i a C o r n ej o L o p e za n d L e o n e l L o p e za p p e a l a s u mm a r y j u d g me nt g ra nted in fa vor of appel lee N or ma Li nda C ast ell ano on the L opez es' co nv ersi on and
com mo n-law f raud claims. By six issues, the Lop ezes conte nd th at th e trial court erred inC ast el l ano f i l ed n o ap pel l ee' s br i eft o assi st us i n t he r esol ut i on o ft hi s case. Accor di ngl y , we de ci de 1 t hi s app eal base d on t he b r i eff i l ed b y t he L opez es an d t he r ecor d be f or e us.

Al t hough i t i s notcl earf r om t he r ecor d, i t app ear s as i f$50 , 000 oft he $ 100, 000 was pl aced i n t he 2 r egi st r y of

t he t r i al cour t

. T he Lopez es hav e r equest ed t hat t he t r i al cour t r el ease t hatm oneyt o t hem

. T he l ocat i on o ruse oft he r em ai ni ng $ 50, 000 i s di sput ed. 2 g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment bec ause mater ial fact i ss ues re main. W e af firm in par

t and
re v erse and remand i n par t. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND 1 South Tex as ACP Manag ement, LLC (South T ex as ACP ) w as created in 2006 as a l imi ted l iab il ity

co mpany . Ces ar

R oel Perezi s t he s ole manag er of So u th Tex as AC P, and Castellan o, Pe rez 's mot her-in-law , is a mem ber—a llegedly its sole mem ber. The Lopez es ass ert i n the ir peti ti on th at, in Ma y

2007, they

w ere beg inn ing neg oti ati ons w it h Perezand South Tex as ACP to buy an i nteresti n Sout h Tex as AC P. Acc ordin g to the p eti ti on, they disc uss ed the ex pansi on of the Pl ay g ro und F un C enter a/k /a P l a y g ro u n d Acti o n P a r ki n B ro w n s v i l l e , T e x a s , w h i c h w a s t o i n c l u d e t h e b u i l d i n g o f a sk ati ng r ink

faci li ty adj acentto the e x is ti ng faci li ty

. As setout in thei r peti ti on, a s a si g n of g ood fait h, E li a Lopezdepos it ed $100 ,000 int o a W e lls F a rg o Bank ac count ; t he funds
w ere to be held in esc ro w until the Lopez es compl eted a due dil ig ence inv est ig ati on of the busin ess. After the L opez es dis cov ered th at P erezal leg edl y made mi srepresentat io ns regarding the f inan cial cond ition of Sou th T exas ACP, the o w nersh ip of Sout h T exas ACP's
ass ets , and the ex is tenc e of l ien s ag ain st South Tex as AC P's as set s, they demanded the return o f their mo ney. Accordin g to alleg ation s in the petitio n, Pe rezand Sout h T exas ACP faile d to re tur n the money and faile d to prov ide an a cc ounti ng . O n August9 , 2007, t he 2As ev i dence, C ast el l ano at t ached heraff i dav i t and t he a ff i dav i t of Per ez to her m ot i on. She al so 3 a tta c h e d e x c e r p ts o fth e L o p e ze s ' d e p o s it io n te s tim o n y a n d d o c u m e n ts re g a r d in g S o u th T e x a s A C P 's f or m at i on, f i l i ng, and r egul at i ons.

T he L opez es at t ached t he f ol l owi ng e v i dence t o t hei rr esponse : ( 1) El i a Lo pez ' s aff i dav i t ; ( 2) a 2006 4 D e e d o fT r u s t, S e c u r ity A g r e e m e n t, a n d F in a n c in g S ta te m e n t ( D e e d o f T r u s t) ; ( 3 ) o n e o fS o u th T e x a s A C P 's i nt er r ogat or y r esponse s; ( 4) a copyof a check i n t he am ount of $100, 000 m ade pay abl e t o Cesar Per ez ; ( 5) a d oc um en t t i t l ed " R ol l er B oo gi e"; a n d ( 6 ) a W el l s F arg o B an k ac c ou nt t ran s ac t i on rec ei pt an d i nq ui ry i nf or m at i on o n whatapp ear s t o be the sam e acco unt

. No ev i dence was at t ached t o t he L opez es' suppl em ent al r esponse .

T he Lopez es cl ai m t o hav e added ci v i l consp i r acyas a ne w cause ofact i on i n t hei rt hi r d am ended 5 pet i t i on. However , onl y t he t i t l e, " C i v i l C onspi r acy , " app ear s i n t hi s pet i t i on. I t off er s not hi ng m or e t o ad v ance th is c la im

. 3 Lopez es sued South Tex as AC P, P erez , and C ast ell ano for common- law fraud and conversion. On Decemb er 10, 200 7, the Lop ezes f iled a secon d am end ed p etition w hich add ed factu al allegation s regarding the f raud and conversion claims. On D ecember

14, 2 0 0 7, C ast ell ano fil ed a hy br id no- ev ide nce and t ra dit ion al moti on for s ummary

j udg ment. The Lo pez es re spond ed, fil ing the ir re sp o nse on F ebr uar y 5, 3 2008, and t hei r suppl emental respon se on F ebr uar y 11, 2008. Both re spons es w ere fil ed

4 ti mely —more tha n s ev en days b efore t he s ummary j udgm e n t hear ing

. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 66a( c)( "Ex cepton l eav e of cour t, the a dv erse par

ty , not lat er than sev en days p ri or to the d ay of

hea ring ma y

f ile and serv e op posin g af f idavits or oth er w ritten resp onse ."); Hay nes v. City of B eaum ont , 35 S.W .3d 1 66, 1 72-7 3 (Te x . App .–T exarkana 200 0, no pet. ). On Feb ruary 11, 200 8, th e Lo pezes also f ile d a t hird am end ed p etition . In this peti ti on, t hey

added all eg ati ons of stat utor y fraud in a re al est ate t ra nsacti on, see T EX . B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN . § 27. 01 ( Ver non 200 9) , neg li g ence, and g ro ss neg li g ence. 5 On Feb ruary 13, 200 8, Caste llano f iled objection s to the L o p e ze s ' summ ary jud g ment ev ide nce, a n d i n t he al ter nati v e, a re ply to the L opez es' respon se and supp lem ent al respon se. Relevant to th is appe al, Caste llano sp ecif ically obje cted to EliaIn a d d itio n to th e h e a r s a y o b j e c tio n , C a s te lla n o o b j e c te d to E lia L o p e z 's a ff id a v it a r g u in g th a t it 6 cont ai ned l egal concl usi ons a nd u nsuppo r t ed f act ual concl usi ons. She al so ob j ect ed t o t he Deed of T r ust as un aut hent i cat ed a nd i ncom pl et e an d t o Sout h T exas AC P' s i nt er r ogat or y r esponse on t he b asi s t hat t he Lopez es r epr esent ed t hat i t was Cast el l ano' s r esponse . Cast el l ano f i l ed n o obj ec t i ons t o t he co pyof t he check, t he " R ol l erBoogi e" docu m ent , ort he W el l s Far go Bank r ecei pt and i nqui r y i nf or m at i on. 4 L o p e z' s a f

f id a vit , a rg u in g t h a t itco n t a in e d h e a rs a y. SeeT EX . R. E V ID . 801. The Lopez es 6 did not ass ert th e a p p lic a ti on of any hearsay ex cept ion

. See i

d. at R . 803

. Nor

di d the Lop ezes raise any obje ctions to Castellan o's evidence. In her reply, Castellan o also
o bje ct e d to th e f ili n g o f

t h e L o p e zes ' th ird am e n d e d pe ti ti o n as un ti m e ly. No w rit te n rul in gs on C ast ell ano' s o bje cti ons appear i n the record. The hear ing on Cas te lla n o 's moti on, o ri g ina ll y se t for Febr uar

y 5, 2008, w as resche dule d for Februa ry 11, 200 8, and t hen a gain for Februa ry 20, 20 08. At the Feb ruary 20 hearing, coun sel prese nte d argume nt. Coun sel for Castellan o again objected to Elia Lopez 's aff ida v it—s peci fical ly , t o Lopez 's st atement that Pereztol d her thatC ast ell ano was in poss ess ion o f

t h e $100,000. At the e nd of the hear ing , w it hout ex press ly r uli ng on Cas tel lan o's object ion , the tri al cour t granted Cas tel lan o'sm oti on for summar y j udg ment. On F ebr uar

y 26, 2008, Cas tel lan o filed a m o ti on to se v er the cl aims ag ain st her from the cl aims al leg ed ag ain st Perezand South Tex as AC P. The Lopez es filed a four th amended pe ti ti on on Apr il 1 , 2008, arg uin g that al l caus es of acti on were notaddress ed in the summ aryjudgmen t mo tion. In this fourth ame nde d pet ition, filed af ter the summ ary judgme nt he aring, the Lo peze s a d d e d tw o ne w cause s of

action ident if ied as civi l
cons piracy

and mali ci ous prosec uti on/i ntent ion al infli cti on of em oti onal dist re ss . On t hat same d ay , the Lopez es res ponded to Cas tel lan o's m oti on to se v er , ag ain as ser ti ng thatnot all ca uses of act ion ag ain st her w ere address ed i n the su mmary j udg ment moti on.T hi s di scussi on o ff i nal i t y app l i es t o t he L opez es' secon d, f i ft h, and si xt h i ssues, whi ch ad dr ess 7 cl ai m s add ed su bseque nt t o t he f i l i ng o ft he se cond am ended pet i t i on. 5 On A pr il 18, 2008, the t ri al cour t s ig ned i ts jud g ment g ra nti ng C ast ell ano' s mot ion for s um ma r y j ud g me nta nd o rde r i ng t ha t th e Lo pe z es t ak e no th i ng b y t he i r s ui t against Cas tel lan o. The ju dg ment s tated thatthe tr ial court : heard Cast ell ano' s n o- ev ide nce and tradi ti onal moti on for summar y jud g ment that w as based on the sec ond amende d pet it ion on f ile at the time the mo tion was f iled; review ed e ach m otion , the timely-filed respon ses, and s uppor

ti ng su mmary

j udg ment ev ide nce; and conc lud ed th at t here were s uff ic ien t g ro unds to find thatno mater ial iss ue of factprecl uded the granti ng of the moti on. It set out t hat t he "j udg ment c ov ers a ll of the reli ef" c la im e d by the Lopez es and t hat t he jud g ment woul d "bec ome a fina l jud g ment as to

. . . Cas tel lan o upon the s ev erance. " After
sum ma ry

judgmen t w as en tered in fa v or o f Ca stellan o, the t rial court severed the L ope z es' claims againstCastellan o f rom th eir claims against Pe rezand Sout h Te x as ACP; th us, Perez and So uth Te x as ACP are no t parties to this app eal. II. F I N A LI TY OF TH E J UDGME NT W e first address the is sue of the final ity of the tr ial court 's judg ment. A j udg ment 7 must be f ina l before it can be appeale d. See Leh m ann v. Har-C on Corp ., 39 S. W .3d 1 91, 192 ( Tex . 200 1)

. A j udg ment i ss ued w it hout a c onv enti onal tr ial —for ex ample, a j udg ment rend ered on a pre-trial m o t io n for sum ma ry judgmen t—"is f inal for purpo ses of app eal if and onl y i f eithe r ita ct ual ly

di spos es of all cl aims and par ti es then before t he c our t,
re g ardle ss of it s l ang uag e, or it sta tes w it h unmis tak abl e cl ar ity that iti s a final j udg ment
as to al l cl aims and all par ti es. " Id . at192- 93; see als o Lopez v. Sul ak, 76 S.W .3d 5 97, 603 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 2, no pet. ). Otherw ise, the judgmen t is onlyT he L opez es pl eaded ci v i l consp i r acyand m al i c i ou s p r osecut i on/ i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on o fem ot i onal 8 di s t res s for t he fi rst t i m e i n t he i r fou rt h am en de d pe t i t i on . T ha t pe t i t i on w as fi l ed aft er t he m oti on for su m m ary j ud gm en t w as he ard an d w i t ho ut l ea ve o f co urt ; t he refore , i t w as no t t he l i ve p l ea di ng w he n t he su m m ary ju d g m e n t w a s s i g n e d

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 63 ( pr ov i di ng t hat am ended pl eadi ngs m aybe f i l ed wi t hi n sev en d a ys o ftr ia l or

thereaf t er on l y w ith l ea v e o f

co urt ) ( em ph as i s ad de d). 6 int er loc utor

y . Lehm ann , 39 S.W .3d a t 192

. Mo re o ver , g ra nti ng more reli ef than t he
mov ant i s e nti tl ed to makes the order rev ersi ble , butnot int er loc utor y . Id

. Here, i n t h e i r

s e c o n d a me n d e d p e t i t i o n , t h e L o p e z e s a l l e g e d c a u s e s o f a ct i o n for
conv ersi on and common -la w f ra ud. Cas tel lan o fil ed her moti on for summar

y j udg ment af ter th e L o p e ze s f iled this seco nd a me nde d pe tition. The Lop ezes then f iled a third amended pe ti ti on rais ing new al leg ati ons of st a tu to ry f ra ud i n a real es tate transacti on, negligence, an d gross negli gence. T he third am end ed pet ition w as time ly f iled on Feb ruary 11, 2 008, nin e days b efore t he s ummaryj u d gm e n t h ear ing hel d on Febr uar y 20, 2008. See T EX . R. C IV . P

. 6 3 (p ro vid in g t h a ta m e n d e d p le a d in gs m a y b e f il e d wit h in se ve n d a ys of tr ial or th ereafter onl y w it h l eav e of cour

t) ; Goswam i v. Metro. Sav. & Lo an Ass'n , 751 S.W .2d 487, 490 (Tex

. 1988) (s etti ng out that a summar y jud g ment proceed ing is a tri al
w ithin th e me anin g of

rule 63). E v en th ough th e he aring was set an d reset m ultiple tim es, the t hird amended peti ti on was ti mely fil ed bec ause the key date for pur poses of ru le 63 is the d a te of the fin al hear ing from w hic h the su mmary j udg ment "s prang ." Cantuv. Hol iday Inns , 910 S.W .2d 113 , 115 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 199 5, w rit denied ). Therefore, i n thi s c ase th e fo llo wing cl aims w ere before the tr ial co urt atthe ti me of the
sum ma ry

ju dgme nt hea ring: (1) co mm on-law frau d; (2) conversion; (3) statu tory f raud in a real estate transacti on; (4)negl ig ence; and (5 ) g ro ss neg li g ence. The t ri al cour t g ra nted 8 Cas tel lan o's moti on, d ecl ar ing i ts deci si on to be a final j udg ment and order ing t h at t he Lop ezes take no thing by the ir cl aim s.7

Rev iew ing the live pl eadi ng s i n the co ntext of C ast ell ano' s a ss erted g ro unds for seek ing su mmary

j udg ment, iti s c lea r that the t ri al cour t' s summar

y judg ment add re ss es all of the Lo pezes' claims as of the da te Caste llano's m otion w as f iled bu t doe s not ad dress cl aims added after the s ummary j udg ment moti on was filed

. See Le hm ann , 39 S.W .3d a t 205 (setting out tha t to determ ine w het her an orde r actu ally dispose s of

all pend ing cl aim s, an appe ll ate c our

t may l ook to t he record i n the ca se) ; Rose v. First Am. Title Ins. Co ., 907 S.W .2d 6 39, 6 41 ( Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1995, no w ri t) ( re v iew ing su mmary j udg ment in cont ext of pl eadi ng s a nd s ummary-j udg ment ev ide nce) . Y et, t h e order st ates
une quiv ocally tha t f inal judgm e n t , u pon sev eran ce, is rende red tha t the Lop ezes take nothi ng by

thei r sui t ag ain st Cas tel lan o. See Le hm ann , 39 S.W .3d at 20 4. Such an o rd er g ra nts more reli ef than C ast ella n o i s enti tl ed to recei v e from he r moti on bec ause her
mo tio n d id not ad dress the Lop ezes' statuto ry f raud , neglig ence , and g ross neglig ence cl aims , w hic h w ere first all eg ed after C ast ell ano' s mot ion for s ummary j udg ment was filed

. Therefore, it is rev ersi ble , but not i nter loc utor y . See i d. W e conc lud e that itw as er ro r for the t ri al cour

t t o g ra nt a final jud g ment based , in par t, on c lai ms notproper ly before itat the
summar y j udg ment hea ri ng . See id

. W e s ust ain th e L o p e zes' sec ond, fifth, and si xth is s u e s o n t h is b a s is o n ly. III . N O -E VI D ENC E S U M M A R Y J UDG M ENT S TA NDA RD OF R E V I E W A ND A PPLI C A B LE L AW T he sta nda rd of

rev iew for the granting of

a mo tion for sum ma ry judgmen t is deter mined by

w hether the moti on w as bro ug ht on no-ev ide nce or tradi ti onal g ro unds. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 66a( c) , ( i) ; Or tega v. City Nat 'l

Bank, 97 S. W .3d 765 , 771 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet.)( op. o n reh'g ). C ast ell ano fil ed a combi ned t ra dit ion al8

and no-evidence mot io n for sum ma ry judgmen t. W hen a party moves fo r summ ary judgme nt un der bo th r ules 166a (c) and 166 a(i), "[w]e f irst review the trial court's sum ma ry jud g ment und er

the sta ndards of [r] ule 166a( i) ." S e eF o r d Mo to r C o . v . Ridg way, 135 S.W .3d 598 , 600 (Tex. 2004 ). Und er r ule 166a( i) , t he mov ant must all eg e that there is no e v ide nce of a mater ial ele ment of the adv erse par ty 's cl aims

. T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 66a( i) ; see Sw

. Ele c. P ower Co.
v. Gr ant , 73 S.W .3d 2 11, 2 15 ( Tex . 200 2)

. W hil e notreq uired to marshal al l her proof, the
non- mov ant mus t produce more tha n a s ci nti ll a of summar y j udg ment ev ide nce to rais e a g enui ne is sue of mat er ial fact. See Ridg way, 135 S.W .3d at 600 (Tex . 200 4) ; Gr ant , 73 S.W .3d a t 215

. If the no n- mov ant fai ls to produce more tha n a sc int il la of ev ide nce under
ru le 166a( i) , t here i s n o need to anal yz e w hether the mov ant' s s ummary j udg ment proof sat is fies the les s str ing ent ru le 166a( c)burden. Ridg way, 135 S.W .3d at 600 . If , howev er, the n on- mov ant bri ng s for w ard more tha n a s ci nti ll a of probati v e ev ide nce, then a no- ev ide nce summar

y judg ment i s n ot proper . Moore v. K Mart Corp ., 981 S. W .2d 2 66, 269 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 199 8, pe t. de nied ). W e rev i ew

a n o- ev i de nc e s um ma r y j ud g me ntfor

e v i de nc e th atwou l d en ab le
re asona ble and fair-mi nded j urors t o di ffer i n the ir co ncl usi ons. Ham ilton v . Wil son , 249 S. W .3 d 42 5 , 4 2 6 (T e x. 20 0 8 ) (ci ti n g City of K eller v. Wils on , 168 S.W .3d 802 , 822 (Te x. 2005) ). W e "examine the e nti re record i n the l ig ht mos t fa vorabl e to the n on[- ]mov ant, ind ulg ing ev er

y reaso nabl e inferenc e and re sol v ing any doubt s a g ain st the mot ion ." Sudan
v. Sudan , 1 9 9 S. W .3 d 2 9 1 , 2 9 2 (T e x. 20 0 6 ) (p e r cu ria m ) (qu o ti n g City of K eller , 168 S.W .3d at 823 ).Al t hough t he fi rst i s sue i s wr i t t en i n ge ner al t er m s sugg est i ng t hat i t i s app l i cabl e t o al l cause s of 9 act i on, we c o n s t r u e i t o n l y a s a c h a l l e n g e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s g r a n t i n g s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n t h e Lop ez es' conv er si on cl ai m . W e do so because t he co m pl ai ned- ofev i dence ar guabl y suppor t s onl y t he p ossessi on o r c o n tro l e l e m e n t o f c o n v e rs i o n . S e e Te x . D e p 't o f T ra n s p . v . C ro c k e tt , 257 S. W

. 3d 4 12, 416 ( T ex. A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 08 , pe t

. de ni ed ). 9 The el ements of conv e rsi o n a re : (1 ) the p lai nti ff ow ned, had l eg al poss ess ion of, or

w as enti tl ed to pos ses si on of the proper ty ; ( 2) the defe n d a n t a ss umed and ex erci sed domini on and cont ro l ov er the proper

ty in an unl awful and unautho ri z ed manner , to the ex cl usi on of an d i ncons is tent w it h the pl ain ti ff's rig hts ; and (3) the defendant refused th e pl ain ti ff's demand fo r t h e re t u rn o f

t h e p ro p e rt y. Tex. D ep't

of Tr ansp. v. Cro ck

ett , 257 S.W .3d 4 12, 4 16 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2008, pet. deni ed)

. To est abl is h a c lai m for frau d , a pl ain ti ff mustes tabl is h tha t: ( 1) the defendant made a mater ial represent ati on k now ing th e r e p re sent ati on was false, or re ck les sl y

as a posi ti v e ass erti on w it hout any kn ow led g e of it s t ru th, w it h the i ntent ion to ind uce the p lai nti ff

to actupon it ; ( 2) the pla int iff actual ly and jus ti fia b ly reli ed upon the
re present ati on; a nd ( 3) the pla int iff suffered i nju ry . Er nst & Y oung, L.L.P. v

. Pa c. Mu t. Lif

e Ins. Co ., 51 S. W .3d 5 73, 5 77 ( Tex . 200 1) ; Br adfor d v . Ve nto , 4 8 S

. W

. 3 d 7 4 9 , 7 5 4 -5 5 (T e x. 200 1). IV. D I S CUS S I ON A . Co nversi on C laim By the ir first and fourth issues, the Lop ezes g en e ra ll y c o n t end thatthe trial court erred in granting summ aryjudgmen t on th eir conversion c la im be cause mat erial fact q uestions ex is t and bec ause there i s c ontrov erti ng ev ide nce. R eg ardin g the cont ro l 9 ele ment of the conv ersi on c lai m—C ast ell ano' s p oss ess ion of the money—the Lo pez es cont end i n the ir

first is sue that beca use El ia Lopez 's aff ida v itco ntrov erts the a ff ida v it s o f Castellan o an d Pere z , E li a Lop ez's af f idavit should be taken as true an d sho uld prevail,10

and therefo re, s um ma r y j ud g me nt i s i mp rop er . The Lo pe z es ' ap pe l l at e arg um en t, in relevant part, follows: Castellan o de nies receiving [Elia] Lope z 's mo ney. Perez den ied ha v ing told [Elia] Lo pez that Pe rezg ave the m one y t o Castellan o an d tha t Castellan o is in poss ess ion of the mone y . [El ia] Lopez 's af fidav itst ates thatPereztol d her he g av e the money

to Cas tel lan o. The la w fav ors t he non- Mo v ant a nd ta kes as true th e af

f idavit of the non-Movant. T hus, [Elia] Lo pez's af f idavit w hich cont rov erts the af

f idavits of Castellan o and Perez is take n as true a nd sh ould prevail. W e di sag re e for the fol low ing reason s. F irst, the Lopez es do not suppor t this co ntent ion
w it h c lea r and c onci se arg uments and w it h appropr iat e c it ati ons to au thor it ies and to t he
re cord. Se eT EX . R. A PP . P. 38. 1(i). Seco nd, a s d iscussed b elow, th e trial court imp licitly grant ed Cast ellano 's hearsa y object ion to Elia Lop e z' s a f f id avit; thus, the allegedly cont ro v erti ng st atement w as n o t p ro p er ly before the t ri al cour

t as su mmary

j udg ment
ev ide nce. B o t h C a s t e l l a n o a n d P e re z s t a t e d i n t h e i r re s p e ct i v e a ffi d a v i t s fi l e d i n s upport of Cas tel lan o's moti on for summar y judg ment that Pere zdid not g iv e the Lopez es' money to Castellan o. Perez also av owed tha t, "[a ]t no tim e did [h e] repre sentto Mrs. Elia C ornejo Lopezthat[he] had g iv en M s. Castel lan o the enti re $100, 000 dol lars [ si c] or any por ti on of the money

[t he L o p e zes ] gav e [hi m]." El ia Lopezco ntrov erted t his ev ide nce w it h the followi ng statem entin her ow n af f idavit fil e d i n supp ort of her respon se to Caste llano's moti on: "Perez. . . tol d me t hat N or ma C ast ell ano [w as] i n poss ess ion of myOne Hun dred Thousand Dol lars ( $100,00 0.00) ." Cas tel lan o fil ed a w ri tten obj ect ion and als o objected a t t he s ummary j udg ment hear ing thatEl ia Lopez 's st atement w as hearsay . SeeT EX . R. E V ID . 801

. Th e Lo pezes did not a ss ert any

ex cept ion to the h earsay r ule

. See i

d. a t R. 8 0 3

. T h ro u gho u t th e he a rin g,11

couns el for the Lopez es arg ued that the sta tement w as ev ide nce th a t Ca stell ano poss ess ed th e money

at is sue, thus es tabl is hin g the sec ond ele ment of conv ersi on or , at le a st, creati ng a facti ss ue on that ele ment. At the h ear ing , t he foll ow ing ex ch a n ge occ ur re d: Th e C o u rt : -- butt h e re i s n o d i s a g re e me n tt h a tthere w as $100,00 0 – [C ast ell ano' s C ounse l] : Ri g ht. T h e Co u rt : -- gi ve n b y ch e c k , b y t h e L o p e ze s , t o P e re z. [C ast ell ano' s C ounse l] : To Perez , and not to C ast ell ano. The Co urt: Ces ar - - ri g ht. [C ast ell ano' s Cou nsel ]: There is ev ide nce that it w as ev er [si c] g iv en, o r touc hed t o [s ic] M s. Cas tel lan o. [The Lopez es' C ounse l] : But there i s e v ide nce – T h e Co u rt : No

. Ho ld o n , h o ld o n . I f I re m e m b e r c o rre ct ly, Mr . Lop ezsa y s: "I don' t k noww ho C ast ell ano is .["] That ex cer pt that I got

. And I think ev en – El ia Cor nej o Lopezalso sai d, that she h ad nev er me t her. [C ast ell ano' s C ounse l] : That's co rrect

. [T he L o pezes' Counse l]: But[Elia Lop ez] also sa id tha t Cesar Perez told h e r, t h a t[ Ca s t e ll a n o ] go tt h e m o n e y. The Co urt: W ell , t hat' s w here the hearsay co mes i n. T h e re fo re , wh il e t h e re wa s n o wr it t e n r u li n g o n C a s t e ll a n o ' s h e a rs a y o bje ct io n , we conc lud e tha t t he tr ial co u rti mpli ci tl y su sta ine d her

proper obj ect ion to the c hal len g edW e a ls o c o n c lu d e th a t t h e r e le v a n t p o r tio n o fE lia L o p e z 's a ff id a v it is in a d m is s ib le h e a r s a y; 10 t her ef or e, t he t r i al cour t di d no t er ri n gr ant i ng C ast el l ano' s no- ev i dence m ot i on f orsum m ar y j udgm ent on t he c o n v e rs i o n c l a i m b e c a u s e th e L o p e ze s r a i s e d n o g e n u i n e is s u e o f m a te ria l f a c t a s to th e p o s s e s s i o n e l e m e n t. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 6 6 a (i); T EX
. R. E V ID
. 803.

F o r t h e fi rs t t i m e o n a p p e a l , t h e L o p e zes o b jec t t o t h e fo rm o f C a s t e l l a n o ' s a ffi d a vi t a n d P e r e z's 11 aff i dav i t on t he b asi s t hat t heyar e sel f
- ser v i ng and ar gue t hat t he aff i dav i t s shoul d not be consi der ed b y t he tri a l c o u rt a s s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t e v i d e n c e fo r th a t re a s o n . See Tr i
- St eel Struct ures, I nc. v. Baptist Found. of Tex

. , 166 S. W

. 3d 44 3, 4 48 (T ex . App. –For t W or t h 20 05, pet

. den i ed) ( pr ov i di ng t hat an obj ect i on t hat an a ff i d a v i t c o n s ti tu te s c o n tro v e rte d s e l f- s e rv i n g te s ti m o n y i s a n o b je c tio n to f o rm ); see a lso T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3 .1 (a )( 1 ) ("A s a p re re q u i s i te to p re s e n ti n g a c o m p l a i n t fo r a p p e l l a te re v i e w , t h e re c o rd m u s t s h o w th a t .

. . th e c o m p l a i n t w a s m a d e to th e tri a l c o u rt b y a ti m e ly r e q u e s t, o b je c ti o n , o r m o ti o n . . . ."); T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 6 6 a ( f ) ( " D e f e c ts in th e f o r m o fa ff id a v its o ra tt a c h m e n ts w ill n o t b e g r o u n d s f o rr e v e r s a l u n le s s s p e c if ic a lly po i nted o ut b y ob j ec t i on by an op po s i ng pa rt y w i t h o pp ort un i t y , bu t refus al , t o a m en d." ). T he Lo pe z es ha ve n o t p re s e rv e d th i s a rg u m e n t fo r re v i e w . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33

. 1( a) ( 1)

. M or eo v er , had i t bee n pr es er v ed , we w o u l d n o t re a c h th e L o p e ze s ' c o n te n ti o n b e c a u s e i t i s n o t d i s p o s i ti v e o f th i s a p p e a l

. S e e id

. atR

. 47. 1.

In s u p p o r t o fth e ir a r g u m e n ts , th e L o p e ze s re f e r e n c e e x c e r p ts fr o m P e r e z a n d C a s te ll a n o 's 12 d e p o s itio n te s tim o n y, w h ic h th e y a tt a c h to th e ira p p e lla te b r ie fa s E x h ib it 3 a n d E x h i b it 8 , r e s p e c tiv e ly. H o w e v e r , w e f in d n o n e o f th e r e f e r e n c e d te s tim o n y in th e re c o r d . A lth o u g h th e ir r e s p o n s e a n d E li a L o p e z's 12 sta tement in El ia Lopez 's aff ida v it

. H av ing su sta ine d the obj ect ion , t he tr ial co urt di d not 10
cons ide r El ia Lopez 's s ta tement as summar y j udg ment ev ide nce w hen he g ra nted
summar y j udg ment i n fav or

of Cas tel lan o. 11 In t hei r fourth is sue, the Lopez es cont end t hat t hey al so pro ved t h at facti ss ues re main re g ardin g the poss ess ion or co ntrol ele ment of thei r conv ersi on c lai m beca use the
mo n e y " w a s p l a c e d i n a c h e c k i n g a c c o u n t o p e n e d , a u t h o r i z e d , a n d c o n t ro l l e d by Castellan o; Caste llano is a signatory on th e acco unt ." T he L ope ze s provi de n o record ci tati on to su ppor

t t hese all eg ed facts , see T EX . R. A PP . P. 38 .1(i), and w e f ind no supp ort for this cont ent ion f rom o ur rev iew o f t he sum ma ry

ju dgme nt evidence . Th e Lo pezes also sug g est , w it hout suppo rt ing auth or ity , see id ., that Cas tel lan o pos ses se d the money becau se, as the alle ged s o le member of South Tex as AC P, s he recei v ed a director i n d i re ctb e n e f i to f

t h e m o n i e s w h e n a m o rt g a g e p a y m e n tw a s o r p a y m e n t s w e re m a d e . W e are notpersuade d by

thi s a rg ument, and we ag ain find n o ev iden ce i n t h e record to suppo rtthi s c ontent ion

. 12aff i dav i t r ef er t o an " exhi bi t 6— C esarPer ez ' s dep osi t i on t est i m ony , " t hat exhi bi t doe s notapp eari n t he r ecor d.

Li k ewi se, i n t hei rsupp l em ent al r esponse , t he L opez es r ef ert o Cast el l ano' s dep osi t i on t est i m ony , y et no tr a n s c r ip t o fth e r e f e r e n c e d te s tim o n y is in th e r e c o r d . T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e is n o e v id e n tia r y s u p p o r t f o rth is a rg u m e n t. See, e. g. , G onz alezv. Vi llar real , 2 5 1 S .W .3 d 7 6 3 , 7 7 7 n . 1 7 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 8 , p e t. d is m 'd w .o .j .) ( " A n a p p e lla te c o u r t c a n n o t c o n s id e rd o c u m e n ts c ite d in a b r ie fa n d a tt a c h e d a s a p p e n d ic e s if t heyar e not fo r m al l y i ncl uded i n t he r ecor d on app eal

. " ) ( ci t i ng Bur ke v. I ns. Aut o Auctions , 169 S. W

. 3d 7 71, 7 7 5 (T e x . A p p .– D a l l a s 2 0 0 5 , p e t. d e n i e d )) ; Beacon Mgm t

. & G en. C ontr. , I nc. v. Boyer , I nc. , 178 S. W

. 3d 1 98, 21 0 (T ex . A pp . –H ou s t on [ 14 t h D i s t

. ] 20 05 , no pe t

. ) ( s am e).

H av i ng co ncl uded t hat t he L opez es di d no t m eet t hei rbur den on Cast el l ano' s no- ev i dence m ot i on, 13 th e r e is n o n e e d to a n a lyz e w h e th e rC a s te lla n o 's s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t p r o o fs a tis f ie s th e l e s s s t r i n g e n t r u le 1 6 6 a (c ) b u rd e n o n th e L o p e ze s ' c o n v e rs i o n c l a i m . See Ford M otor C o. v. R i dgw ay , 135 S. W

. 3d 5 98, 600 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ); see a lso T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. 13 Therefore, after

ex amini ng the e n ti re record i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the Lopez es, i ndul g ing ev er y reason abl e i nferenc e and r e solv ing any doubt s a g ain st the moti on, see Sudan , 199 S.W .3d a t 292 , and rev iew ing the summar y judg ment record for evidence th at w ould ena ble reaso nab le and fair-mind ed jurors to d if fer in their conclu sions,
see Ham ilton , 249 S.W .3d at 426, w e c oncl ude, as to C ast ell ano' s n o- ev ide nce moti on for
summar y j udg ment, that the L opez es hav e fail ed to produce more tha n a scint il la of
ev ide nce ra is ing a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fa ctreg ardin g the poss ess ion or co ntrol ele ment of co nv ersi on. See Ridg way, 135 S.W .3d a t 600 . Thus, we c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial court did not err in grant ing C aste llano no-evidence su mm aryjudgmen t on th e Lo pezes' conversion claim

. W e overrule the f irst and fourth issues. 13 B. F rau d Cl aim In thei r t h i rd i s s u e , t h e L o p e z e s c o n t e n d t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r re d i n g ra nti ng summa ry jud gm e n t b e ca u se m a te ria l fa ctiss u e s e xistco n ce rn in g C ast ell ano' s i nvolvement in thei r fraud al leg ati ons. The Lopez es ass ert t hat C ast ell ano' s a ct of si g nin g a 20 06 D eed of Trust , Se cur ity

Ag re ement, and F ina nci n g S tatement( Dee d of Trus t) i s t he mis re present ati on upon w hic h the ir co mmon-l aw

fraud cl aim is bas ed.14

T he Dee d of

Trust w as f iled w ith the Cam eron Coun ty Clerk's of f ice on or abo ut July 21, 2 006. Ca st e lla n o si g ned i t as a g ra ntor /bor ro w er

i n her personal and ind iv idu al capa city . Th e Deed of Trustw as a lso sig ned byPerez as a g ranto r/borrower in his personal and ind iv idu al capac ity and in his capac ity as manag er and member o f So uth Tex as AC P. The Lopez es arg ue th at C ast ell ano made a fa lse r e p re sent ati on to the Lopez es and ot hers s imi lar ly si tuate d w hen, by

sig nin g the Dee d of

T ru st, she represent ed that Perezw as a member of South Tex as AC P w hen, in fact , he w as not. The Lopez es urg e tha t, by

si g nin g thi s D eed of Trus t, Cas tel lan o "represent ed to the w or ld that

. . . Perez is al so a member

of S o u th T e xas ACP .

. . and

. . . C ast ell ano has par ti ci pated in fraud, common[- ]l aw

fraud, and decep ti on to the credi tors to w hom the Dee d of Trus t app li es, and to t he [L opez es] ." The Lopez es pro v ide no suppo rt ing authori ty for this arg ument, and we find none. The De ed of Trus t doe s n ot l is t t he Lope z es as benef iciari es or credi tors; they

are not ide nti fied i n any

ca paci ty

as par ti e s to this D eed of Trus t. M oreov er , ev en as sumi ng Cas tel lan o k new

sh e w as falsel y re present ing Perez 's sta tus as a member of S outh Tex as AC P w hen s he s ign e d t h e d ocument , we c annot conc lud e tha t t his i s e v ide nce that her act ion s were done w it h the i ntentto ind uce th e L o pez es to i nv esti n Sout h Tex as AC P. See E rn st & Young , 51 S.W .3d a t 577 ; Bradf ord , 48 S. W .3d a t7 5 4 -5 5

. I n fact, it is undi sput e d t h a t al most one y ear l ater , t he Lope z es had noty et met , s poken to, or exchanged correspon den ce w ith Castellan o. Moreover, our review of the record reveals no ot her ev ide nce est abl is hin g thatC ast ell ano ma d e a n y m ater ial represent ati on to the Lopez es re g ardin g the transacti on th at for ms t he bas is of th is la wsui t k now ing theAgai n, hav i ng concl uded t hat t he L opez es di d no t m eet t hei rbur den on Cast el l ano' s no- ev i dence 14 m ot i on, t her e i s no need t o an al y z e whet herC ast el l ano' s sum m ar y j udgm ent pr oofsat i sf i es t he l ess st r i ngent ru l e 1 6 6 a (c ) b u rd e n o n th e L o p e ze s ' fr a u d c l a i m . R idgw ay , 1 3 5 S .W .3 d a t 6 0 0 ; see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. 15 re present ati on was false w it h the i ntent ion to ind uce the L opez es to act upon it. See Ernst & Young , 51 S.W .3d a t 577

. Therefore, after

ex a m in in g the enti re record i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the Lopez es, i ndul g ing eve ry reas onabl e i nferenc e and re sol v ing any doubt s a g ain st the moti on, see Sudan , 199 S.W .3d a t 292 , and rev iew ing the summar y j udg ment record for evidence th at w ould ena ble reaso nab le and fair-mind ed jurors to d if fer in their conclu sions,
see Ham ilton , 249 S.W .3d at 426, w e conc lud e, as to C ast ell ano' s n o- ev ide nce moti on for
summar y j udg ment, that the L opez es hav e fa iled to produce more tha n a s ci nti ll a of
ev ide nce ra is ing a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact reg ardin g thei r fraud c lai m. See Ridg way, 135 S. W .3d a t 600

. W e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt di d noter r in g ra nti ng C ast ell ano summar y j udg ment on the Lopez es' common- law fraud cl aim. The Lo pez es' thi rd i ss ue

14 is ov er ru led

. V. C ONCL US I ON Acc ordin g ly , we aff ir m the jud g ment as to the c ommon-l aw fraud and co nv ersi on cl aims and rev erse and remand for furth er proceed ing s o n the i ss ue of C ast ell ano' s l iab il ity under the cl aims added in the L opez es' thi rd amended peti ti on.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Del iv ered and filed the 25th day of Febr uar

y , 201 0.