1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2 - 0 7 - 2 6 2 - CV
W I L L I AM W YR OS K I AP P E L L ANT V . DA NN Y R. CHO ATE AN D APPE L L EE S IN S U L T E C H O F T E X A S , I N C ., D/ B/A I NSUL TE CH

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 352ND DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRAN T CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON O N R E HE AR I NG 1

----- ----- -- I. I N T R OD U C T I ON O n Febr uar y 2 8 , 20 08 , t hi s C our ti ssued an opi ni on af f i r m i ng t he t r i al
cour t ’ s j udg m ent . A ppel l antW i l l i am W yr oski f i l ed a m ot i on f orr ehear i ng. A f t er due con si der at i on, w e deny W yr oski ’ s m ot i on f orr ehear i ng, butw e w i t hdr aw2 ... A p p e l l a n t us e s th e term “g rou n d s” to d e sc ri b e the i ss u e s h e p res e n ts

on a ppe al ; w e, t her ef or e, w i l l s i m i l ar l y r ef er t o hi s i ss uespr es ent ed as gr ounds o f e rro r. 2 ouropi ni on a nd j udgm entda t ed Feb r uar y 28 , 2 0 0 8, an d s ubs t i t ut e t he f ol l ow i ng. O urdi sp os i t i on oft hi s ca se r em ai ns unc han ged . Thi s i s a s um m ar y j udgm entap pea l . W yr os ki s ued A ppe l l ee s D ann y C h o a te a n d I n su l tec h o f T e x a s, I n c . (I n su l tec h ), c l a i m i n g th a t h e a n d C h o a te
w er e equal par t ner s of I nsul t ech and t hatw hen he l ef tI nsul t ech, C hoate f ai l ed t o p a y h im h a lf o f In s u lt e c h ’s b o o k v a lu e a s t h e t w o h a d p u r p o rt e d lyv e r b a lly agr eed. A ppel l ees m oved forsum m ar y j udg m ent , th e tr ial cour tgr ant ed
su m m ar y j udgm ent , and now W yr os ki br i ngs f our g ro unds i n t hi s appeal 2
c h a lle n g in g t h e s u m m a r yju d g m e n tin f a v o r o f C h o a t e a n d In s u lt e c h . W e w ill
a f f i r m. II. F ACT UALAND P RO CEDU RA L B ACKGROUND I n e ar l y 2003, W yr os ki , w ho ha s ove r t w ent y yea r s of exp er i enc e i n t he bus i nes s of i ns t al l i ng and se r vi ci ng hea t i ng, ven t i ng, and ai rc o n d i ti oni ng ( H V A C ) syst em s, l ost hi s j ob w hen hi s com pany dow nsi zed. C h o a te h ad pr evi ousl y w or ked w i t h W yr oski , and w hen W yr oski l ef thi s j o b , h e , C hoate, and a m u tual f r i end di sc us se d w or ki ng i n a H V A C bus i nes s t oge t her . The d e p o s i ti o n te s ti m o n yv a ri e d a s to w h e th e r th e th re e w e re to b e e q u a l p a rtn e rs3

i n t he bus i nes s orw het herChoat e w as t o be t he bos s and s ol e o w neroft he
com pan y. ButW yr os ki cl ai m ed t hat , eve n t hough m anys pec i f i cs oft he j oi nt
ow ner shi p w er e notdi scussed and not hi ng w as puti nt o w riting, t he t hr ee
n e v e rth e l e s s i n te n d e d to b e e q u a l p a rtn e rs o f In s u l te c h . B yl a te 2 0 0 4 , W y ros k i an d C h o a te w e re fi g h ti n g , a n d W y ros k i d e c i d e d to l eave I nsul t ech ( t he m u tu a l fr i end had l ef tI nsul t ech shor t l y af t erhe began
w o rk i n g th e re ) . W yr os ki as ke d f orha l foft he bookva l ue ofI ns ul t ec h, an d,
ac cor di ng t o W yr os ki ’ s or i gi nal pe t i t i on, C hoa t e agr ee d t o buy W yr os ki “o utof hi s 50 % of t he busi ness usi ng I nsul t ech boo k val ues f ort he yearend 2 00 4 as th e b a s i s fo r th e v a l u a ti o n o f . . . W y ro s k i ’s 5 0 % s h a re .” C hoa t e n eve rpa i d W yro sk i , s o W yr os ki br oughts ui ton b r ea ch of contr act , quantum m er ui t , unj ust enr i chm ent , and pr om i ssor y est opp el cl ai m s. A f t erdi sc ove r y, C h o at e a nd I ns ul t ec h f i l ed a c om bi ned t r adi t i ona l an d noevi den ce m ot i on f ors um m ar y j udgm ent , as se rt i ng a s one off ourba s e s f or
sum m ar y j udg m entt hatW yr oski had no d am ages. The t ria l c our tgr ant ed C hoa t e a nd I ns ul t ec h’ s m ot i on w i t hout st at i ng t he gr ound on w hi ch i tba se d t he
sum m ar y j udg m ent . W yr oski now appeal s. III. S TANDARDS OF R EV I EW I n a t r adi t i onal sum m ar y j udg m ent case, t he i ssue on appeal i s w het her t he m ova nt m et t he su m m ar y j udgm entbur den by es t abl i sh i ng t hatno g enu i ne4

i ssue ofm at er i al f actexi st s a n d th a t t he m ovant i s ent i t l ed t o j udg m entas a
m a tte r o f l a w . T EX . R. C IV . P . 1 6 6 a (c ); S w . E le c . Po w er C o . v. Gra n t, 73 S .W .3 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ); Cit y of Hous ton v. Clea r Creek Ba si

n Auth. , 589 S .W .2 d 6 7 1 , 6 7 8 (T e x . 1 9 7 9 ). T h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f is o n t h e m o v a n t , a n d a ll dou bt s aboutt he exi st ence ofa genui ne i ssue ofm at er i al fa c t a r e r esol ved
a g a i n s t th e m o v a n t. S w . E le c . Po w er Co ., 73 S. W . 3d a t215. W hen r e v i e wi n g a s u mm a r yj u d g me n t , we t a k e a s t r u e a l l e v i d ence f avo r abl e t o t he nonm ova nt , an d w e i ndul ge ev e ry re as ona bl e i nf er enc e a nd
re s o l v e a n yd o u b ts i n th e n o n m o v a n t ’s fa v o r. Valenc e Operati ng Co. v. D o rse tt, 1 6 4 S .W .3 d 6 5 6 , 6 6 1 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ). E v i d e n c e th a t fa v o rs th e m o v a n t’s p o s i ti o n w i l l n o t b e c o n s i d e re d u n l e s s i t i s u n c o n tro v e rte d . Grea tA m . Res erve I ns . C o. v. San Antoni o Pl um bi ng Supply Co. , 3 9 1 S .W .2 d 4 1 , 4 7 (T e x . 1 9 6 5 ). A de f end antw ho c onc l us i vel y ne gat es at l ea st one es se nt i al el em entof
a c a u s e o fa c t io n is e n t it le d t o s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t o n t h a tc la im . IHSC e da rs Trea tm ent

Ctr. of D eSoto, Tex. , I

nc. v. Mas on , 143 S. W .3 d 794 , 798 ( Tex. 200 4) . O nce t he def end ant pr oduc es su f f i ci ent evi den ce t o es t abl i sh t he r i ght to su m m a ry j u d g m e n t, the b u rde n sh i fts to th e p l a i n ti ff to co m e forw a rd w i th
c o m p e ten t co n tr o v e rt i n g 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 fac t w i th
r e g a rd to th e e l e m e n t c h a l l e n g e d b yth e d e fe n d a n t. C en te q R e a lt y, I n c. v. Si egler, 8 9 9 S .W .2 d 1 9 5 , 1 9 7 (T e x . 1 9 9 5 ).5

A f t eran ad equ at e t i m e f ordi sc ove r y, t he part y w i t houtt he bur den of pr oofm ay, w i t houtpr es ent i ng e vi den ce , m ove f ors um m ar y j udgm enton t he g r o u n d t h a t t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o rt a n e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t of t he
n o n m o v a n t’s c l a i m o r d e fe n s e . T EX . R. C IV . P. 16 6a( i ) . The m ot i on m ust
s p e c i fi c a l l y s ta te th e e l e m e n ts fo r w h i c h th e re i s n o e v i d e n c e . Id. ;Joh ns on v. Bre w er & Pritch a rd

, P.C ., 7 3 S .W .3 d 1 9 3 , 2 0 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e tri a l c o u rt
m us tgr antt he m oti o n u n l es s t he nonm ova ntpr oduc es s um m ar y j udgm ent
e v i d e n c e th a t ra i s e s a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a te ri a l fa c t. S eeT EX . R. C IV . P . 1 6 6 a (i) & c m t.; S w . E

le c . Po w er Co ., 73 S. W . 3d a t215. 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 ryj u 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 t m o s tf a v o r a b le t o t h e n o n m o v a n t , in d u lg in g e v e r yre 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 yd o u b ts a g a i n s t th e m o ti o n . Sudan v. Sudan, 199 S. W . 3d 291, 292 ( Tex. 200 6) . I f t he nonm ova ntbr i ngs f or w ar d m or e t han a sci nt i l l a of pr obati ve evi dence t hat r ai ses a genu i 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 ry j u d g m e n t i s n o t p ro p e r. Moore v. K MartCor p. , 981 S .W .2 d 2 6 6 , 2 6 9 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 1 9 9 8 , p e t. d e n i e d ).

I V. C HOATE AND I NSU LTECH ’ S S UM M A RY J UDG M EN T E VIDENCE I n s u p p o rt o f th e i r “ n o d a m a g e s ” g ro u n d fo r tra d i ti o n a l s u m m a ry j udg m ent , C hoate and I nsul t ech at t ached t he af f i davi t of I nsul t ech ’s c ert i f i ed pub l i c accoun t ant as sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence. That af f i davi test abl i shes6

t hat , unde rge ner al l y a cc ept ed ac cou nt i ng pr i nci pl es ( G A A P) , a t t he end of 20 04 In s ul t ech’ s book val ue w as negative $1 59 , 31 4. I nsul t ech’ s bal ance sh ee t , s how i ng t he br ea kdo w n ofi t s as se t s, l i abi l i t i es , an d s t ock hol der ’ s equ i t y, is a tt ached t o t he accoun t ant ’ s af f i davi t . Thu s, C hoate and I nsul t ech concl usi vel y negated t he dam ages el em ent of W yr oski ’ s cl ai m — even i fW yr oski
w as ent i t l ed t o 5 0% oft he boo k val ue o fI nsul t ech att he end of 200 4, t hat
v a l u e w a s n e g a ti v e . See Mas on , 1 4 3 S . W . 3 d a t 7 9 8 . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t he bur den shi f t ed t o W yr oski t o pr esentcont r over t i ng sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence
r ai si ng a ge nui ne i ss ue ofm at e r i al f ac tco nce r ni ng t he bookva l ue oft he
c o m p a n ya t th e e n d o f 2 0 0 4 . S ee C enteq R ealt y, I nc. , 899 S. W . 2d a t197. W y r o s k i a p p a r e n t lya t t e m p t e d t o m e e tt h is b u r d e n b ya t t a c h in g h is depo si t i on as sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence. I n hi s depo si t i on, W yr oski at t acks t h e v a lu a t io n m e t h o d u s e d b yIn s u lt e c h ’s a c c o u n t a n ta s r e f le c t in g a n in h e r e n t ly
unr el i abl e f i gur e b ec aus e i tf ai l ed t o t ak e i nt o a cc ountea r ni ng c apa ci t y, goi ng
con ce r n, orgood w i l l v a l ues . ButW yr os ki pr es ent ed no s um m ar y j udgm ent
e v i d e nce t hata b o o kv a l u e c a l c u l a t i o n b a s e d o n s o me t h i n g o t h e rt h a n GAA P shoul d be used ( i . e. , usi ng t he i t em s ur ged by W yr oski ) , w as com m onl y used in t h e in d u s t r y , o r w a s a c t u a lly a g r e e d u p o n b y h e a n d C h o a t e . In f a c t , t h e o n ly pot ent i al s um m ar y j udgm entev i den ce pr of f er ed by W yr os ki co nce r ni ng t he3 ... A f t ert es t i f yi ng t hatChoat e h ad t ol d hi m t hatt he com pan y ha d a

$70 0, 000 ne tpr of i t , W yr os ki t es t i f i ed t o t he f ol l ow i ng:

Q . W el l , i ts ounds l i k e t hat- -t hatyou runde r st and i ng of w hatt he val u e o f t he com pany w as al w ays f r om w hat[ C hoate] w as t el l i ng y ou. A . C o rr e c t. Q . O ka y. D i d you eve r i nde pen den t l y ca l cul at e t he val ue oft he com pan y? A . N o , I d i d n o t. Q. D i d y o u e v e r s e e a n y t h i n g t h a t r e f l e c t e d t h e v a l ue of t he com pany at any t i m e bef or e you l ef t , ot her t han w hat[ C hoate] s h o w e d y o u . . . ? A . N o , I d i d n o t. Q . D i d yo u - - any bodyel se t al k t o yo u a boutt he val ue of t he com pan y? A . N o. Q . A nd do you ha ve anyot herba si s f ores t i m a ti ng t he va l u e o f t he c om pa nya tt ha tt i m e , i n O c t ob e r- -t he f a l l o f‘ 04, o th e r th a n w h a t y o u ’v e to l d m e a b o u t s o fa r? A . Justourconver sat i ons. 7 com pan y’ s val ue w as hi s ow n t es t i m ony t hatChoat e h ad t ol d hi m t hatt he
c o m p a n yh a d a $ 7 0 0 ,0 0 0 n e t pro fi t. 34 ... A l t hough W yr os ki t es t i f i ed t hathe onc e s aw t he $70 0, 000 f i gur e o n

C hoate’ s com puter , W yr oski adm i t t ed t hatt he num ber s on C hoate’ s com puter w er e a r ef l ec ti o n o f the “ ci r cl e” ofbot h i nco m i ng a nd ou t goi ng m one y f r om I nsul t ech. W hen speci f i cal l y asked abou t w her e t he $7 00 , 00 0 w as, W yr oski s a i d th ati tw as i n “ [ s] om e b ank ” w her e t he m one y w as “ com i ng i n” but
“ m o s tl yg o i n g o u t.” 8 W yr os ki ’ s dep os i t i on t es t i m ony con ce r ni ng hi s bel i ef as t o t he bookva l ue
o f t h e co m p a n yi n the fal l o f 2 0 0 4 , e v e n v i e w e d i n the l i g h t m o st fav o rab l e to W yr os ki , doe s notr ai se a gen u i ne i ss ue ofm at er i al f ac tco nt r ove rt i ng t he
su m m ar y j udgm entev i den ce t h a t Ins ul t ec h ha d a ne gat i ve bookva l ue att he
e nd o f2004 . S e e An der s on v. Sn ider, 808 S. W . 2d 54, 55 ( Te x. 1991 ) 4 (s t a t in g t h a t “ [l] a y t e s t im o n y is in s u f f ic ie n tt o re f u t e a n e x p e rt ’s t e s t im o n y ” in
s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t p ro c e e d i n g s ). T h u s , W y ro s k i fa i l e d to m e e t th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n tb u r d e n t h a ts h i f t e d t o h im w h e n C h o a t e a n d In s u lt e c h c o n c lu s iv e ly
n e g a te d th e d a m a g e s e l e m e n t o f W y ro s k i ’s c l a i m . S ee C enteq R ealt y, I nc. , 899 S. W . 2d at 197 . W e h ol d t hatt he t r i al co urtdi d noter rby gr ant i ng Choat e a nd I nsul t ech’ s m ot i on f orsum m ar y j udg m enton W yr oski ’ s br ea c h ofcont r act
c l a i m. I n t he al t er nat i ve, W yr os ki as se rt s e q u i t abl e c l ai m s aga i ns tChoat e f or qua nt um m er ui t , unj us ten r i chm ent , an d pr om i s s o ry es t oppe l . Choat e f i l ed a
no- evi den ce m ot i on f or su m m ar y j udgm enton a l l cl ai m s, i ncl udi ng t hes e, an d
ourev a l uat i on oft he r ec or d ha s unc ove r ed no e vi den ce ofan y a m ountof5 ... C hoate and I nsul t ech ar e ent i t l ed t o sum m ar y j udg m ent because t hey

con cl us i vel y ne gat ed t he dam age el em entofal l o f W yr os ki ’ s cl ai m s and because W yr oski pr esent ed no evi dence of dam ages on hi s equi t abl e cla im s; c o n s e q u e n t ly , w e n e e d n o ta d d r e s s t h e re m a in in g g r o u n d s p r e s e n t e d in t h is a p p e a l b yW y ro s k i . S e eF M Prop s . Op era ting C o . v. Cit yo f A us tin , 22 S . W . 3d 8 6 8 , 8 7 2

– 7 3 ( T e x . 2 0 0 0 ) (ho l d i n g w h e re su m m a ry j u d g m e n t d o e s n o t sp e c i fy g ro u n d s re l i e d o n , re v i e w i n g c o u rts a re to a ffir m i f a n yg ro u n d i s m e ri to ri o u s ); Ross v. A r

kwr i ght Mut. I

ns . Co. , 892 S. W . 2d 119 , 130 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on

9 d a m a g e s a s s e rt e d b yW y r o s k i a g a in s tC h o a t e c o n c e r n in g t h e s e e q u it a b le t heo r i es . W yr os ki f i r st cl ai m ed t hat he had w or ke d w i t houtpa y f ora per i od of t i m e butadm i t t ed t hathe r ecei ved a w eekl y paycheck and a W 2 for m f orm ost oft he t i m e t hathe w as w i t h t he com pany. W yr oski f ur t hercl ai m ed t hat he had bou ght m at er i a ls fo r th e com pany w i t hou tbei ng f ul l y r ei m bur sed. W yr oski pr ovi ded no s pec i f i cs on e xac t l y w hi ch m at er i al s he bough t , w her e h e b ought t hem , how m uch he pai d f ort hem , orhow m uch he w as r ei m bur sed. W hen que s ti o n ed w het herhe ha d “ anyi dea orco nce ptt o qua nt i f y . . . t he am ount you gav e o rt he am ountt hat you w er e r ei m bur se d, ” W yr os ki ad m i t t ed t hathe di d not. A nd w hile h e sai d t hathe coul d pr ovi de docu m ent s show i ng t hese
am o u n ts, W yr os ki ne verpr oduc ed anydoc um ent s, t o r ebu tChoat e’ s noevi den ce m ot i on f ors um m ar y j udgm entco nce r ni ng da m age s r el at ed t o t he equ i ta b l e th e or i es . Accor di ngl y, w e h ol d t hatt he t r i al co urtdi d noter rby gr ant i ng Choat e and I ns ul t ec h’ s no- evi den ce m ot i on f ors um m ar y j udgm enton W yr oski ’ s equi t abl e cl ai m s. 5[1 4 th D i st .] 1 9 9 4 , n o w ri t) ( rec o g n i zi n g tha t be c a u se d e fen d a n t i s e n ti tl e d to

s u m m a r yju d g m e n t b a s e d o n it s n e g a t io n o fd a m a g e e le m e n to fp la in t if f ’s c la im , i t i s u n n e c e s s a ryto c o n s i d e r re m a i n i n g g ro u n d s p re s e n te d i n th e m o ti o n ). 10 V. C ON C L U S I ON H a v i n g d e te rm i n e d th a t s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t w a s p ro p e r i n th i s c a s e , w e
a ffi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E PA N EL A : C A YC E, C. J. ; H O LM A N an d W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: J un e 19, 2008