When applicable, I will refe r to the individual a ppellants by name and will r efe r to them 1 collectively

as “Rock Sy stems.” 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03- 09 -00 114 -CV

Bobb y J. Sm ith; Rock System s Gr oup, L .L.C.; and L one Star Seating, L.L.C. , Appellan ts 1

v. Royal Seating, Ltd. , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF MI LAM COUNTY , 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 32,0 05 , HO NORAB LE ED MAGRE , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

D I S S E N T I N GO P I N I O N
De sp ite the f

a c t th a t Ro y a l Se a tin g did no t pr od uc e le g a lly

su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e to support two of the e ssential eleme n t s o f a c laim for tortious interfe renc e, the major ity shows
unwar rante d and improper

defe renc e t o t h e t rial cour t and af firms the trial cour

t’s err oneous jud g me nt. B e c a

us e Roya l Se a tin g fa ile d to sh owa re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity that Ro y a l Se a tin g wo uld have e ntere d into a business relationship with the churc hes or that Rock Sy stems’s conduct was ind e pe nd e ntl y

tor tio us or wr on g fu l, I

mus t r e sp e c tf

ull y dis se nt.
F actual Summ ary I n its summ ary

of the e vidence , the majority fails to not e s i g nificant testimonial and documentar

y evidenc e showing g aps in Roy al Seating ’s ar g uments. Although w e ar e re quired2

to show defe renc e to the trial court as finder of fac t in a bench tr ial, in consideringthe suffic iency of t he evidence, we mus t also be mi ndful that in some case s, cer tain evidenc e may

not be cr edited just as other evide nce ma y not be dis re garded by

a re asonable fac t-finder
. See City of Keller v. W ilson , 168 S.W .3d 802, 807 (Tex. 2005).

The pa rties ca lled only

three witnesses—Rick Cree l, Roy al Seating ’s s econd vic epresident, Smith, owner of both Rock Sy stems a nd L one Star Seating , and Ga ry Pemberton, for

mer pr oje c t ma

na g e r f or Roy a l Se a tin g . Cr e e l te sti fi e d th a t Ro y a l Se a tin g do e s n ot c on tr a c t di re c tly wi th e nd us e rs and ins te a d e nte rs int o ind ivi du a l c on tr a c ts wi th ind e pe nd e nt d e a le rs , w ho wo rk wi th the end use rs. Cree l further testified that Roy al Seating did not have a c ontrac t or exclusive
arr an gements with Rock Sy stems that would have r equire d Rock Sy stems to buy chair s from R o y al S ea t i n g. Al t h o u gh C re el s ai d , “It w as o u r i n t en tt o s e l l t o t h o s e t h re e c h u rc h es ” t h ro u gh Roc k Sy ste ms a s Ro y a l Se a tin g ’s de a le r, he a lso te sti fi e d th a t “[ a] s far a s I kn ow ,” Roc k Sy ste ms could have boug ht chairs f rom any distributor it wished. Gary Pemberton’s testimony

was similar. He sa id that Roy al Seating did not have a written contra ct of any kind with Rock Sy stems and when asked, “ Had Rock Sy stems Group dec ided that it cou l d g et a be tter dea l from Irving or Irwin or some other manufac turer than it could from Roy al S eating , could it have e lected to buy those cha irs from somebody

else,” Pemberton answe red, “ They could have , y es.” Pemberton also stated that at the time he lef

t Roy al S eating on Aug ust 31, 2006, Roy al S eating was not obligated t o provide a ny
c ha ir s to any

of the c hurc he s. W h en Creel wa s asked f or his rec ollection about how the potential sa le to the California c hurche s arose , he answ ere d, “My rec all, my

rec ollection was that they —we we reC re el wa s not asked to cla rify and the r ecor d does not ref lect who Cre el meant whe n he 2 s ai d “t h em ” o r t h at “t h ey ” w an t edt o d o b u s i n es s wi t h R o y al S ea t i n g. Other tha n Cr e e l’ s v a g ue stateme nt that Ba rd wa s “a r epre sentative” with information about 3 R o y al S ea t i n g’s p ro d

u ct s , t h e re co rd d o es n o ts h o w w h at h er re l at i o n s h i p wa s wi t h R o y al S ea t i n g. The e vidence is simi larly vague as to what role L azarian ha d in the churc h projec ts. Creel 4 thought L azarian w as a “ construction mana g er” for “ some” of t h e ch urche s; Sm ith testified that L az ar i an wa s m er el y

a c o n s u l t an to nt wo o f t h e p ro j ec t s wh o l ac k ed p u rc h as i n g au t h o ri t y , al t h o u gh he gav e him se lf

the tit le of

c on str uc tio n ma

na g e r; and

Pe mbe rt on

te sti fi e d th a t it

wa s h is
“ un de rs tand ing ” that L a zar ian w a s a c on str uc tio n man a g e r fo r “s ome ” of the c hurc he s. Th e e ma ils from L azarian do not shed lig ht on what his role and a uthority wer e. 3 contac ted about thre e chur ches that t h ey wer e wor

king w ith in C alifornia, a nd they wanted—the y
wer e intere sted in Roy al Seating ’s cha irs . . . and that base d on that interest, they wanted to do business with us—the churc h es wanted to do business with us. And we informed them that we did not sell direc t. We are a dealer- based org anization, and we informed them we do not sell direct and that we wou l d h ave to have a de aler . And so at that point, basically , they said, well, the Roy a l Se a ti n g c h a ir s an d th e w ar r an ty a lo n g w it

h is w h a t th e y w e r e in te r e s te d in
. A n d then we looked at a de aler

that would fit.” Cr e e l te sti fi e d th a t Jen sin e B ard, who he sai d “ wa s a 2 repr esentative that had information on our product,” “wa s working with Mr. L azarian, w ho was the 3
c on str uc tio n ma

na g e r f or the pr oje c ts t

he re in C a lif

or nia that he ’d be e n a sk e d to se rv e . A nd so J ensine ha d been the one that talked w ith St eve L azarian.” 4

I n contra st to Creel’s vague testimony about his “re call” and what “they” may have said, Smit h testified t h at t h e fi rst contac t with any of the c hurche s came from Ron Hester , one of Rock Sy stems’s salesmen, who had moved to Califor nia and wa s attending churc h at AL C. Hester contac ted AL C’s pastor and soon lear ned that AL C’s pastor wa s friends with Cottonwood’s pastor and that both c hurche s wer e planning projec ts r equiring auditorium seating
. Smit h testified t h at4

AL C’s pastor told Hest er t o talk to Steve L azarian a bout the Cottonwood project and a sked if “ may be y ou g uy s c ou ld c ut u s a

de a l if bo th c hurc he s b ou g ht c hairs .” An e ma il f ro m Smi th t o Roy al Seating on Dec ember 1, 2005, su p p o rt s Smit h’s testimony . I n the email, mar ked “ur g ent,” Smit h asks Roy al Seating for a quote for A L C, saying, “ [M] y rep in California

attends the c hurch and knows the pa stor. Ibelieve Ser ies or I rwin has alre ady g iven them a quote.” Gar y Pemberton also supported Rock Sy stems’s evidenc e about the origin of t he relationship with the churches: he testified that Rock Sy stems asked Roy al S ea t ing f or cha ir pricingfor AL C, that Rock Sy stems’s
re qu e st f or a qu ote wa s th e fi rs t c on ta c t Ro y a l Se a tin g ha d w ithAL C, and th at Smit h a lso told Pember

ton about the Cottonwood and EV F ree projec ts. Pemberton testified that he pr omised J ensine B ard a

findi n g fee “bec ause she had put some initial work into Cott onwood.” It was imp ro pe r f

or the tr ia l c ourt to dis re g ard un dis pu te d, c le ar, po sit ive , and dir e c t te sti mony

by Smith and Pember

ton that was fr ee from contradictions and inconsist encie s and was supported by Smit h’s email written in late 2005, evidenc e that shows that the initial conta ct betwee n the churc hes and the parties to this suit came throug h Rock Sy stems, in favor of Creel’ s vag ue and uncer

tain testimony about what he thought mig ht have ha ppened. Fur ther, a lthough Cre el said it was Roy al Seating ’s “intent to sel l t o those three ch u rc h es ” through Rock Sy stems and despite a n email from Pember

ton to Bar d stating that he believ ed that Rock Sy stems would soon be issuing purc hase or ders to Roy al Seating and that the
c hurc he s “f

ull y int e nd on us ing our ch a ir s, ” Roya l Seatin g pr e se nte d n o e vid e nc e that th e c hurc he s, in making the ir final purcha sing decisions, did not leg itimately chang e their mind and de cide to buy fr om L on e Star S e a tin g be c a us e L on e Star S e a tin g wa s a ble to o ff e r t he same or

a be tter ba rg a inNo r did Roya l Seatin g pr e se nt e vid e nc e that it ha d d e a lt w ithpe rs on s w ho we re a c tua lly 5 a uth or ize d to sp e a k o n b e ha lf of the c hurc he s. 5 f o r t h e c h u r c h e s ’ m o n e y. Smit h said the chur ch per sonnel had Roy al Seating literature when he 5

arr ived for the May 2006 meeting , which he thoug ht was proba bly provided by

Ba rd. Asked when he lea rned that L azarian ha d been w orki ng with Ba rd to buy chair s, Smi th answer ed, “N ot to buy chair s, no. They

wer e g oing to buy from I rwin [one of Roy al Seating ’s competitors]. I t was a done deal. T h a t c a me o u t o f St e v e L a zar ia n ’ s mo u th : Co tt o n w o o d w a s g o in g to b u y f r o m I r w in , and t h a t w a s t h e f

a c t
. ” S m i t h t e s t i f

i e d t h a ta l t h o u g h L a z ar i anm ay a ts o m e p o i n t h a v e s a i d d i f f e r e n t l y, the c hurc he s n e ve r t old

Smit h th a t th e y

wan ted to b uy

“ fr om” Roya l Se a tin g . Ro y a l Se a tin g did not produce any

co m m unications from c hurch de cision-maker s showing that the churc hes had
ma de a fi na l de c isi on

to b uy c ha ir s f ro m Ro y a l Se a tin g thr ou g h Ro c k Sy ste ms. At mos t, Roy al Seating showed that duringthe neg otiations, L azarian, w hose authority was ne ver de fined or
e xpla ine d, ind ic a te d at on e po int that he pla

nn e d to buy

Roya l Se a tin g ’s c ha ir s.
Discussion I n its analy sis, the majority completely overlooks the a bsence of evide nce suppor ting
a t le a st two e sse nti a l e le me nts of Roya l Se a tin g ’s c la im a g a ins t Ro c k Sy ste ms. Roya l Se a tin g did
no t pre se nt ev ide nc e to s ho w that th e re wa s a re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity that it wo uld have e nte re d in to a business re lationship with t he chur ches or that Rock Sy stems’s conduct wa s independe ntly tortious or wrong ful. See W

al-Mart Stores, Inc. v. S t urges , 52 S.W .3d 711, 726 (Tex. 2000) (plaintiff
mus t pr ov e de fe nd a

nt’ s “ c on du c t wo uld be a c tio na ble un de r a

re c og nize d to rt ” ); Ba ty

v . Pro te c h I

ns . Agenc y , 63 S.W .3d 841, 860 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) . Wit hout suchAl l of the ill us tr a tio ns se t out in th e re le va nt s e c tio ns of

the Re state me nt ( Se c on d) of To rt s 6 involve direc t relati o n s h ip s b e tw e e n p la in ti ffs a nd third-par

ties with which defe ndants interfe re. See, e.g. , Re state me nt ( Se c on d) of To rt s §§ 76 6, 76 6C, 76 7, 76 8, 76 9 ( 19 79 ). Th e re le va nt s e c tio ns a lso ref er to c o n trac ts or descr ibe the re lationships as “contra ctual,” thus supportingmy conclusion that the pl ain ti ff mus t ha ve so ug ht a

dir e c t r e latio ns hip wi th t he thi rd -p art

y tha t w a s w ro ng fu lly thw arte d b y th e d e f

endant. S

ee , e.g. , id. §§ 766 (Intentional I nterfe renc e with Perfor mance of Con tra c t by Third Person), 766A(Intentional I nterfe renc e with Another ’s Perfor mance of His Own Contract ), 766B (Intentional I nterfe renc e with Prospective Con tra c tua l Relation), 766C (Neg lige nt I nterfe renc e with Contract or Prospective Con tra c tua l Relation) (1979) ( emphasis adde d).

6 e vid e nc e , e ve n if

Roc k Sy ste ms’ s c on du c t w a s “ ‘s ha rp ’ o r u nf a ir ,” Roya l Se a tin g may

no t pr e va il on its claim. Sturges , 52 S.W .3d at 726.

Although the law re lated to tort i o u s i nterfe renc e usually applies in a c ontrac tual context, I rec og nize that such a cla im may be raised in the case of “inter fer ence with a continuing bu sin e ss o r o th er cus to mar y re latio ns hip no t amou

nti ngto a fo rm a l c on tr a c t” and

in r e latio n to “prospe ct i v e q uasi-contr actua l or other r estitutionary rig hts or even the voluntary confe rringof
commerc ial benef

its in rec og nition of a moral obl iga tion.” Restatement (Sec ond) of Tor ts § 766B
c mt. c (1 97 9) . H ow e ve r, it i s n ot i mpr op e r t o c a us e a thi rd- par ty no t to e nte r i nto a

bu sin e ss
re l at i o n s h ip with the plaintiff if the re lationship “conce rns a matter involved in the competition betwee n” def

endant an d plaintiff, the def endant doe s not act wrong fully , the def endant’ s conduct

“ do e s n ot c re a te or

c on tin ue an unla

wf ul r e str a int of tr a de ,” and the de fe nd ant’ s “ purp os e is at le a st in part to adva

nce his intere st in competing” with the plaintiff. Id. § 7 68 (1 ) ( 19 79 ). F ur the r, my
rese arc h did not uncover a ny Texas case s in whi ch a pla intiff who would not have ha d some kind
o f d i r e c tc o n t r a c tu a l o r

p s e u d o - c o n t r a c tu a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e t h i r d

- p art y, and in Sturges , the 6The Tex as cases t o which the supreme c ourt cites ar e Brad for d v . V e nto , 997 S.W .2d 713 7 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1999), re v ’d in p ar t , 48 S.W .3d 749 (Tex. 2001), in which a pur ported buy er of a store sue d the s eller and mall for interfer ing with his plans to sell the s tore to the thirdpa rt y ; Edwards Transport

s, Inc. v. Circle S Transport s, Inc. , 8 56 S.W. 2d

78 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —A mari llo 1993, no writ), involving a suit between two tra

nsportation companies , b o t h o f which ha d preexis ting r elationships and had done business directly with the t h i rd -p ar ty , althoug h neither ha d a fo rm a l c on tr a c t w iththe thi rd -p art y ; State National

Bank v . Farah Manufacturing Co. , 678 S.W .2d 661 (T ex . App.—El Paso 1984, writ dism’d by ag r.), in which the business alleg ed that a ba nk that he ld o ne of

the bu sin e ss’ s loa ns in ter fer e d w iththe bu sin e ss’ s c ho ic e of le a de rs hip ; Light v. Transport Insurance Co. , 469 S.W .2d 433 (Tex. Civ. App.—Ty l er 1 9 7 1 , writ ref ’d n.r.e .), involving a dispute be tween a n ag ent and an insurer

who took a customer

awa y from the a g ent by wr iti ng ins ur anc e in v iol a tio n o f s tate law; Grif f i n v. Palatine InsuranceCo. , 235 S.W . 202 (T e x. Com m’ n App . 192 1, jud g m’ t ado pte d) , in whic h sev e ra l in sure rs re fu se d to se ll i ns ur anc e to a busi ness t hat refused a settlement afte r a fire, resulting in the bus iness being unable to obtain any ins ur anc e ; Celli & Del Papa v. Galv eston Brewing Co. , 227 S.W . 941 (Tex. Comm ’n App. 1921, judgm’ t adopted), in which the def endant br ewingcompany threatened its tenant saloons to make the sa loo ns sto p buy ing be e r and oth e r pr od uc ts fr om the pla int if

f liq uor di st ributor ; American Fr e e ho ld Lan d Mo rtg

age Co. v . B ro wn , 118 S.W . 1106 (Tex. Civ. App. 1909, writ ref’ d), in which the def endant mortg ag e compa

ny alleg edly told the plaintiff’s customers that the pla intiff, a lending agent , wa s n eglect ful , i rres po ns ib le, andin so lv ent; R o b ison v. Texas Pine Land Association , 4 0 S. W. 84 3 ( Te x. Civ . App . 1 89 7, no wr it) , in wh ic h the de fe nd ant c omp any wa s a c c us e d of thr e a te nin g to fire a ny employ ee that used vouchers i ssued by the company to buy g oods from the plaintiff’s store; and International &G.N. Railway v. Gree nwood , 2 1 S. W
. 55 9 (T e x. Civ . App . 1 89 3, no wr it) , in which the r ailroad w as ac cused of encour ag ing its employ ees to boycott the plaintiff’s boa rding ho us e . E ve ry

on e of tho se c a se s invo lve s a

pla int if f who ha d o r s too d to have a dir e c t bu sin e ss r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e t h i r d

- p art y. 7 supreme c ourt said, “ T h ere are only a fe w Texas case s in which the plaintiff ha s rec overe d [for tortious interfer ence with a prospec tive business relationship].” 52 S.W .3d at 725. 7

A cu sto me r is en tit le d to solic it b ids and c on du c t in -d e pth

ne g oti a tio ns ri g ht u

p unti l the mom e nt i t e n t e r s i n t o a c o n t r a c t
. I n v o l v e m e n t i n n e g o t i a t i o n s an d g i v i n g s i g n s o f p l an n i n g to buy from one c ompany

does not bar a customer from chang ing its mind at the last minute. The f act that there are ties betwee n Rock Sy stems and L one S tar S eating does not chang e the fact that, if a ny of Roy al Seating ’s competitors, including L one Star Seating, c ould give the ch u rc hes the same orI rec og nize that Roy al Seating provided a Marc h 2007 email from L azarian stating that the 8 churc hes wa

nted to buy

their cha irs from Ro y al S ea t ing, but a s Ihave sa id, L azarian’ s role in the projec ts is unclear, a

nd despite t hat email, the final purcha se orde rs sig ned by churc h repr esentatives indicated that the c hairs would be provided by L one Star Seating, not Roy al Seating . Roy al Seating did not prese nt any evidenc e showing t hat t he churche s wer e mi sled into believing the ir cha irs wer e fr o m R o y al S ea t i n g i n s t ea d o f Lon e S t ar

S ea t i n g. Th e pa rt ie s d id n ot p re se nt e vid e nc e a bo ut what in vo lve me nt, if any , th e e nd

us e r h a s in 9 the de c isi on -m a kin g pr oc e ss o r whe the r t he e nd us e r d isc us se s b ids a

n d p ro du c ts w ithRoc k Sy ste ms, with the two making a joint decision as to what distributor will be used. 8 a better deal, ther e is no rea son that Rock Sy stems could not chang e its i n t en t i o n s and buy chair s from the competitor instead of Roy al Seating
. Roy al Seating asser ts that it pre sented e vidence “that it had business relations with the three churc hes which wer e to c ulminate in profitable c ontrac ts,” bu t c on c e de s th a t it

ne ve r w ou ld h a ve e ntered into a c on tr a c tua l r e latio ns hip wi th t he c hurc he s. Although Roy al Sy stems produce d various e m ai ls from Pemberton, Jensine Ba rd, Smith, and L azarian doc umenting the parties’ n eg otiations and bidding for contra cts to provide the c hurche s with auditorium seating , Roy al Seating ’s ar rang ement with Rock Sy stems wa s n o t ex clusive, and both Pemberton and Creel testified that Rock Sy stems was not bound to acc ept Roy al Seating ’s bids to p ro vid e c ha ir s f

or its e nd us e rs . 8 Roya l Se a tin g did

no t pr od uce any e vid e nc e that Ro c k Sy ste ms w a s o bli g a te d to choose Roy al Seating ’s bid in satisfy ing a n end user ’s re quest and showed only that it was bidding fo r t he c hurc he s’ bu siness
. Ro ck Sy ste ms c on tr a c te d w iththe c hurc he s f or a pa rt ic ula r c ha ir a t a particula r price , and the e vidence prese nted by Roy al Seating shows that Rock Sy stems was 9 l ega l l y en t i t l edt o co n t ra ct wi t h an y o f i t s d i s t ri b u t o rs t o s a t i s f y t h e c h u rc h es ’ n ee d s . Al t h o u gh Roy al Seating might have hoped Rock Sy stems would choose Roy al Seating ’s cha irs and theUnder its non-exclusi ve ar

rang em en t s wi t h its dealers, Royal Seating might at most be 10 an inc ide nta l thi rd -p art

y be ne fi c iary to its de a le rs ’ c on tr a c ts wi th e nd us e rs . H ow e ve r, a

thi rd -p art y benef iciary only has rig hts under a c ontr ac t if it is an intended benef iciary
. See Restatement (Second) of Contrac ts §§ 302, 304 (1981). “A n incidental bene fi ci ar y acquir es by

virtue of the promise no rig ht ag ainst the promisor or the pr omisee.” Id. § 315 (1981). Imus t no te tha

t in its fi nd ing s o f f

a c t and c on clusio ns of

law, the tr ia l c ourt

sim ply 11 “found” without any

explanation t h at R o ck Sy stems’s conduct “ was indepe ndently tortious and u n l aw fu l
. ” T h i s, howeve r, is not a finding of fa ct but instead is a conc lusion of law, and the c ourt ma de no fi nd ing s r e late d to wh a t sp e c if ic c on du c t w a s unla

wf ul o r t or tio us . 9 c hurc he s ma

y have g ive n in dic a tio ns that th e y pla nn e d to do so , Ro y a l Se a tin g c ert ainly did
no t pr ov e that it

ha d a ri g ht t o a ssume that it

would b e ne fi t f

ro m Ro c k Sy ste ms’ s c on tr a c ts w ith the c hurc he s. 10 Fur

ther, a lthough Roy

a l S e a ti n g c la im s Ro c k

Sy s te ms c o mm it

te d f r a ud or conve rsion, there is no evidence to show that Rock S y s t em s comm itted either tort and thus no e vidence that Roc k Sy ste ms’ s c on du c t w a s in de pe nd e ntl y tor tio us or wr on g fu l. 11 Fr aud i s an ac tion, omis sion, or conce alment in brea ch of a leg al duty

or trust that in ju r e s an o th e r o r g iv e s th e w r o n g d o e r an u n f a ir a dv an ta g e. Jo n es v. Texas De p’t of Protective & Reg ulato ry

Se rv s. , 8 5 S
. W
. 3 d

4 8 3 , 4 9 1 (T ex . Ap p . —

Au s t i n2 0 0 2 , p et
. d en i ed ) ( qu o t i n g Ve la v. Mary wood , 17 S.W .3d 750, 760-61 (Te x . App
. — Au s t in 2000), pet. denied, 53 S.W .3d 684 (Tex. 2001)). “[A] party

to a contra ct is fre e to pursue its own intere sts, even if it results in a bre ach of t hat contract, wit hout incurring tort liability ,” and “[t] he fa ct that one businessman trusts anothe r, and re lies upon his promise to perf orm a contract, does not rise to a conf idential relationship.” Cri m Truck &Tractor Co. v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp. , 823 S.W .2d 591, 594 (Tex. 1992).

Roy al Seating contends that Rock Sy stems committed fraud by not disclosing that they planned to buy the churc hes’ seating from L one Star Seating instea d of Roy al Seating or“[F]iduciary duties may

arise in the c ontext of informa l moral, social, domestic, or 12 persona l relationships in which one pe rson trusts and re l i es o n another. Howeve r, a f iduciary re la tio ns hip is a

n e xtra or din ary on e and wi ll not be lig htl y c re a te d; the me re fa c t th a t on e su bje c tiv e ly trusts another doe s not, alone, indicate that he plac ed confidence in another in the se nse dema nded by a fiduc iary

relationship, because some thing a part fr om the transac tion b et we en the parties is re quired.” Ste

ph an z v . La ird , 846 S.W .2d 895, 901-02 (Te x . App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 19 93 , w ri t de nie d) (ci tatio n o mitte d) ; see G rinnell v. Munson , 137 S.W .3d 706, 718 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.) (f iduciary rel at i o n s h i p is “extraordinary” and not re c og nize d li g htl y

). Al tho ug h Ro y a l Se a tin g a lle g e d th a t Ro c k Sy ste ms b re a c he d f idu c iary du tie s, the trial cour

t’s so-ca lled finding s and conc lusions speak only to tortious int erf

ere nce. 10 that they wer e in nego t i at i o n s with Mobili ario to bec ome a distributor. Howe ver, Roy al Seating has not show n that Rock Sy stems ha d any leg al duty to disc lose its plans—ther e was no contra ct or exclusive arr ang ement betwe en Roy al Seating and Rock Sy stems, and P emberton testified that Ro c k Sy stem s cou ld hav e bo ug ht c ha ir s f ro m any of Roy a l Se a tin g ’s c omp e tit or s. Ab se nt a
c o n t r a c tu a l p r o v i s i o no r

f i d u c i ar y d u t y, neither of

which is prese nt here , Rock Sy stems was not 12 obligated to tell Roy al S ea t i n g that it planned to establish L one Star Seating a s a compe ting d i s t ri b u t i o nco mp an y

o r t h at i tp l an n edt o o rd er ch ai rs fr o m L o n e S t ar

S ea t i n g. F ur the r, the on ly

e vid e nc e re late d to the c hurc he s’ wi sh e s c a me thr ou g h e ma ils betwee n L azarian and re prese ntatives of Rock Sy stems and Roy al Seating . At most Roy al Seating proved that at one stag e in the neg otiations, L azarian, someone with unknown authority for de cisionmakin g on

be ha lf of the c hurc he s, state d th a t he wa nte d to buy

fr om R oy a l Se a tin g . Ro y a l Sy ste ms provided no dire ct evidenc e fr om the church es , s u ch as testimony by or af fidavits from chur ch de c isi on -m a ke rs sh ow ingtha t, i n ma kin g the ir fi na l de c isi on , th e c hurc he s to ld R oc k Sy ste ms to order f rom Roy al Seating or we re somehow misled into believing the chair s were coming from Roy al Seating instead of L one S tar Seating. In other wor ds, there is no e vidence that the chur ches11

we re no t pe rs ua de d thro ug h le g iti mate b us ine ss p ra c tic e s to sw itc h f ro m Ro y a l Se a tin g to L one Star—the of

fer ing of a better price or other non-wrong ful competitive conduct cannot support a tortious interfe renc e cla im. I ndeed, the fac t that the final purcha se orders re fer to L one Star Seating
wo uld su pp or t an in fe re nc e that th e c hurc he s k ne w e xac tly

wh o w ou ld b e su

pp lyingthe ir

c ha ir s. As for Roy al Seating ’s ar g ument that Rock Sy stems committed conv er s i o n when it cashed a

deposit chec k from Cottonwood without disclosi ng it to R oy al Seating , the ev i d ence does not establish that Roy al Seating had any owner ship or possession rig hts to the chec k. See Ap ple Im po rts , I nc . v . Ko ole , 9 45 S.W. 2d 89 5, 89 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 19 97 , w ri t de nie d) (t o e stab lis h
c o n v e r s i o n , p l a i n t i f

f m u s tp r o v e i th a d

l e g a l p o s s e s s i o no f

o r e n t i t l e m e n tt o p o s s e s s i o no f p r o p e rt y, defe ndant unlawf

ully and without authorization took control over prope rty t o ex clusion of or inconsistent with plaintiff’s ownership rig hts, plaintiff demande d proper ty ’s re turn, and de fenda

nt ref used). Without such evidence , Roy al Seating cannot show c onversion. See id.

Th e disput e d c he c k is fr om C ott onwo od and is m a de ou t to “ RO CK

SYS TE MS GROUP/ROYALSEATI NG L TD” in the a

mount of $105,487.50. The che ck re fer ence s “I D#: 61132” and w as date d J uly 12, 2006. That purchase order was not introduced into evide nce,
and it i s n ot c lear whe th er it wa s p re pa re d b y Roc k Sy ste ms o r C ott onwo od . T he pa rt ie s a lso introduced ( 1) purc hase or der numbe r 6106 written on C ottonwood’s letterhe ad on May 31, 2006, addre ssed t o “ROCK S YSTEMS GROUP/ROYAL SEATI NG L TD.,” and stating that the churc h was orde ring 3,600 Alessandr ia cha irs for a total of $461,601.00, t h at a d ep osit of “25% of total price ” wa s require d, that the orde r and deposit wer e “subje ct to acknow ledg ment by Roy al Seating ,”
and that th e or de r w a s su

bje c t to a mor e de fi nit ive a g re e me nt; (2 ) a n e ma il f ro m Ro c k Sy ste ms t oTwenty -five pe rce nt of $461,601.00 is $115,400.25, not $105,487.50. 13 Roy al Seating i ntroduce d sever al purc hase or ders pr epar ed by Rock Sy stems for 14 the c hurc he s th ro ugho ut t he ne g oti a tio ns . So me of th em are wr itt e n o n le tte rh e a d th a t r e a ds , “Rock Sy s t em s Group/Roy al Seating L td.” Other s are written on letterhe ad in Rock Sy stems’s name a lone, and still others on letterhe ad for Rock Sy stems/L one Star Seating
. Smit h testified that he cr eate d the letterhe ad including the one for “Rock Sy stems Group/Roy al Seating L td.,” and ther e wa s n o e vid e nc e that Roy a l Se a tin g e nd or se d or e ve n kn e w a bo ut the le tte rh e a d. Al l of the purc ha se order s prepa

red by Rock Sy stems, whether

on letterhe ad for

Rock Sy stems, Rock Sy stems/Roy al Se a tin g , o r R oc k Sy ste ms/ L on e Star S e a tin g , s tate that de po sit c hecks sh ou ld b e ma de pa y a ble to R o c k S ys t e m s G r o u

p , n o tt o R o c k

S ys t e m s an d

s o m e o t h e r

e n t i t y. 12 Roy al Seating dated June 29, 2006 stating, “ This is a preliminary purcha se orde r for

y o u r fi l e, I have not r ece ived the deposit or f abric selec tion y et,” a

nd asking Roy al Seating to fax a letter “ stating that Ro y a l Se a tin g ha s r e c e ive d th e P O asap”; and (3 ) a fax fr om R oy a l Se a tin g to R oc k Sy ste ms dated June 29, 2006, acknow ledg ing rec eipt of Rock Sy stems’s “Purcha se Orde r *RSG PO# 206- 03CA for the Cottonwood Christian Center” for 3,600 Ale ssandria c h ai rs . Creel testified that Roya l Se a tin g ’s fax wa s se nt i n r e sp on se to R oc k Sy ste m’ s e ma il.

Th e pa rt ie s did no t in tr od

uc e int o e vid e nc e purc ha se or de r 2 06 -0 3CA , r e fe re nc e d in the email and f

ax, and the chec k, written about two we eks later and not written for

25% of the total price of Cottonwood’s purcha se orde r 6106. The trial court seems to ha ve ignor ed the fac t that the 13
e vid e nc e do e s n ot sho w that a Cotto nw oo d re pr e se ntativ e e ve r saw Roy a l Seatin g ’s fax, muc h le ss that the che ck was related or written i n response to the fax
. More important, Cottonwood’s mistaken use of Roy al Seating ’s name on the chec k d o es n o t g ive Roy al Seating a rig ht to possession of t h e m o n e y. Icannot imag ine th at t h e m ajorit y intends to hold that, if a pay or mistakenly writes 14 an additional name as a pa y ee on a chec k, that named pa

rty i s i n s tantly

and leg ally

entitled to the proce eds of the c heck, r eg ardle ss of the contr ac t u al arrang ements surroundingthe writing of the13

c he c k. I ns te a d, the ma

jor ity sh ou ld r e c og nize that th e c on tr a c t un de r whic h th e c he c k w a s a pp are ntl y
wr itt e n wa s be tw e e n Cottonwo od and Roc k Sy ste ms a lon e , a nd that Ro y a l Se a tin g ha d n o r ig ht t o
any of the de po sit mon e y un til Roc k Sy ste ms se nt a fin a l pur c ha se or de r t o Ro y a l Se a tin g . B e c a us e Roy al Seating did not show any rig ht to possession of the Cottonwood funds, the re is no evide nce to show that Rock Seating committed conver sion with relation to the chec k. See id.
Conclusion I believe the trial court clea rly err ed in its revie w and weig hing of the ev idence
. Roy al Seating utterly

failed to present l eg ally sufficie nt evidenc e to show at l east two e lements of its tortious interfe renc e cla im, and there fore is not entitled to rec over. The majority has g lossed over the evidentiar

y g aps in its determination to aff irm the trial cour

t. I would reve rse the por tion of the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt f

ind ingin f

a vo r o f R oy a l Se a tin g on

its tor tio us int e rf

e re nc e c la im a

nd wo uld
re mand the c a us e fo r a ne w d e te rm inatio n o f atto rn e y ’s fe e s.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Patterson and Pury ear Filed: Nove mber 6, 2009