Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 23 , 2024

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 23

- 00195

- CV

YUNCAI TANG , Appellant

V. AMERICAN CITIGROUP REAL ESTATE, INC.; VENETIAN PROPERTY,

LLC; AMERICAN CITYHOME GROUP, INC.; YUE YIN ; AND WEI J IA X U , Appell e e s

On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 16506

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Yuncai Tang appeals from a take

- nothing judgment rendered by
the trial court in favor of appellees A merican Citigroup Real Esta t e, Inc

. ; Venetian Property, LLC ; American Cityhome Group, Inc.; Yue Yin ; and Wei Jia Xu ( collectively, the S ellers ) on Tang ’ s breach

- of

- contract and Dec e ptive Trade
Practices

– Consumer P rotection Act (DTPA) claims arising out of his purchase of

re al estate in H arr is County

. See Tex. B us

. & Com. Co d e Ann. § § 17.41

– .63. In a2 single issue on appeal , 1 Tang argues th e trial court erred by gra nting the judgment notwithstanding the verdict ( “ J NOV ” ) with respect to the jury questions

concer ning Tang ’ s DTPA c laim against appe llees.

B e ca use T ang has n ot challenged all the grounds on which the trial court
rendered JNOV, we affirm

. I. B ACKGROUND
While living in Sh anghai , Tang purchase d two residential lots , located in Harris County, from Ameri can Citigroup Real Esta te, Inc

. The con tr act contained
the sale s price of $237,3 00 for each lot, which include d the real property and a newly con structed house

. Tang alleges that he entered the contract because the Seller s made misrepresentations about the properties to hi m that they knew w ere un true and
thos e r eprese ntations were mad e to induce Tang to purchase the properties

. Tan g signed the contract in November 2015 , along with an addendum reflecting th at the

1 Although Tang spe cifically presents thr ee appellate issues, only one of hi s issue s alleges any error on the part o f the trial court. F u rther, all three stated issues address aspects of the only trial

- court e rror raised by Tang

— wheth er the tri al c ourt erred by gra nting judgment not withstandi ng the verdict on the D TPA questions : I ssue 1

. Whether the trial court erred i n granting Appellees ’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict regarding the jury’s answers to questions 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12, whi ch su pport [] Mr. Tang’s Deceptive Trade Prac tices theory of

reco very. Issue 2

. Whether t here is sufficient evidence to su pport the jury’s a n swers to questions 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12, which support [] Mr. Tang’s Deceptive Trade Practices the ory of

rec over y. I ssue 3

. Whether Mr. Tang’s grievances against Appellees are cogni zable only under contrac t law

— or also under the Decept i ve Trade Practices A c t.3 properties would be ready for delivery in 20 16. 2 The propert ie s were ultimately n ot ready until 2019

. Although he paid the 30% down payment for each of the two properties , Tang never secured financing for the balance of the cost , nor did he
make the final contractual payme nt

. Tan g arrived in the Uni ted States with hi s family and moved in t o one of t he properties , but he was not satisfied with the quality of the properties , and he did not want to buy the properties

. 3
Tang sued the Seller s for breach of contract, violation of the DPTA , and
other causes of a ct ion

. B ecau se all o f Tang ’ s oth er causes o f action were dismissed
on directed verdict and not pertinent to this appeal , we only discuss Tang ’ s brea ch

- of

- contract and DTPA claims . The Seller s countersued Tang for breach of

con tract

. Tang ’ s breach

- of

- contract and DTPA claims were trie d to the jury , along
with the Sellers ’ breach

- of

- contract claims against Tang

. The jury found there was
no breach of contract by either Tang o r the Seller s and awarded no
breach

- of

- contract damag es. However, the jury fou nd that the Seller s had vio lat ed
the DTPA and award ed dam age s

. 4 The Sellers moved for a J NOV on grounds including (1) there was no evidence supporting the jury ’ s f i nding of damages and (2) the DTPA claim was barred by the statute o f limit ations. The tri al court granted

2 Tang also signed an addendum which provides that if the Seller cannot deliver the properties b efore Au gust 31, 2016 , “the company will compensate $700 per month to the landlord.” If the properties could not be delivered by December 3 1, 2016, then the co n tract states it will be cancelled and the initial payment will be returned with damages. The a ddendum also allo ws the co ntract to be cancelled automatically if the buyer cannot get financing. Neither Tang
nor the Seller s ap pea r t o have enforced contractua l provisions until after the properties were completed.

3 There was also testimony that Tan g w as ev icted by the S ellers after a short st ay in the properties

. 4 The jury verdict is not part of the appellate record , although it was requested by Tang. Howev e r, because Tang did not challenge all the grounds on which th e trial court rendered JNOV, a co py of the jury v e rdict is not necessary to the disposition of this appeal

.4 the Se ller s ’ motion an d rendered J NOV o n those jury questions that addressed
Ta ng ’ s DTPA claim:

The Court , having considered the Motions , the Responses , the Jury ’ s verdict , the applicable law including the statute of limitations , the evidence and testimony intro duced a t trial , and the arguments of

coun sel , finds that the evidence and applicable law does not support the jury ’ s findings as to Question Numbers 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 1 2 , and 13

. The Court further finds that the r e was insufficient evidence [o f] damages for Question Num bers 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , and 13 a s well

. The trial court then rendered a final judgment on the remaining questions in the jury ver dict and incorporat ed the JNOV on the DTPA claims, resulting in a judgme nt that Tang take nothing judgment on hi s c la ims agai nst the S eller s and that the Sellers take nothing on their claims against Tang.

II. A NALYSIS “[U ]po n motion a n d r easonable notic e the court may r ender judg men t non

o bstante ver edicto if a directed v erdict wo uld have been proper, an d provided
furt her that the court ma y , upon like motion and notic e, disregard an y jury finding

o n a question that has no sup po rt in th e ev idence.” Tex. R . Civ. P. 3 01. “ Judgment without or against a jury verdict is proper at any course of the proceedings only
when the la w does not a llow reas onable jurors to dec ide otherwise.” JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Orca Assets G.P., L.L.C. , 546 S.W.3d 648, 653 (Tex. 2018) ( qu oting City of Kell er v. Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802, 823 (Tex. 200 5))

. W e review a trial court ’ s grant of a judgme nt notwithst anding th e verdict
under a n o
- evidence standard, examining whether any evidence supports the jury ’ s findings. Gharda USA, Inc. v. Control Sols

. , Inc. , 464 S.W.3d 338, 347 (Tex.
2 0 15); Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper , 802 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex. 1990). No evidence exists w hen there is:5 (a) a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact; (b) the court is barred by rules of law or of evidence from giving w eight t o the only evidence offered t o prove a vital fact; (c) the evidence offered to prove a vital f act is no mo re than a mere scintill a; (d ) the evidence establishes conclusively the opposite of the vital fact.
City of Keller , 168 S.W.3d at 8 10 . More than a scint i lla of evidence exists when
the evidence supporting the finding “rises to a level that woul d enable rea sona ble

a nd fair

- minded people to differ in their conclusions.” Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye , 907 S.W.2d 497, 499 (T e x. 1995 ) (citation omitted). When determining whether any evidence supports a judgment , we are “ limited to reviewing only the
evidence t endi ng to support the jury ’ s verdict and must disregard all evidence to the contrary. ” Gharda USA, Inc. , 464 S.W.3d a t 347 (q uoting Mancorp, Inc. , 802
S .W.2d at 227).

When a trial court s pecifies the ground on which it is granting a judgment

no twithsta ndin g the verdict, an appellant need on ly challenge the ground the trial

court relied on. Holman St. Baptist Chur c h v. Je fferson , 317 S.W.3d 540, 547 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) ; C f. Fort Bend C nty

. Drainage Dist.

v. Sbrusch, 818 S.W.2d 39 2, 394 (Tex. 1991) (noting that when party moves for judgment notwithstanding verdict on multiple grounds a n d trial court grants judgment not w ithstanding verdict without specifying which ground it found decisive, appellant has burden of showi ng t h at judgme nt notwithstanding verdict was not proper on any of asserted grounds). 5
Here, the tri al court specified its grounds for granting the JNOV:

T he Court

. . . finds that the evidence and applicable law does not

5 An appellee may assert on appeal any other grounds that it alleged i n its motion fo r JNOV, but were not relied upon by the trial court, to attempt to vitiate the jury ’ s verdict. Ho lma n , 317 S.W.3 d at 547 ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 38.2(b); Tex. R. Civ. P. 324(c). Here, t he Sellers do not raise an y grounds which were not a lr e ad y included i n the trial court ’s order.6 support the jury ’ s findings as to Ques t ion Numbe rs 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 1 2 , and 13

. The Court further finds that the re was insufficient evidence [of] damages for Qu e stion N umbers 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 1 2 , and 13 as well

. The trial court further specifically states in its order that it considered “ applic abl e law inclu ding the statute of limitations ” before concluding that the “ applicable
law ” does not support the j ury ’ s findi n gs. Therefore, Tan g had the bur d en to address all the grounds on which the trial court granted the JNOV. Tang mention s in his appellat e br ie f that th e Sellers sought judgment notwithstanding the verdict, among other reasons, becau se Tang filed his DTPA cl a im outside the limitations peri o d. The statute of limitations was argued in the posttrial hearin g on the Sellers ’ motion for J NOV. However , Ta ng make s no argument on appeal to challenge the statute

- of

- limitation grou nds.

Because Tan g does not address or argue erro r w ith res pect to one o f the explicit JNOV grounds and we must affirm a JNOV if it can be sustained on any ground rel ied on by th e trial cou rt, w e overrule Tang ’ s sole issue on appeal.

III. C O NCLUSION We affirm the judgment of the trial court as challen ged on a p pe al.

/s/ C harles A

. S pa in J ustice

P an e l con sists of Justi ce s Wis e , Spain , an d Hassan

.