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

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 1 5 7 - CV ANN E . M AL ONE AP P E L L ANT V . G A RY R. M A LO N E, I N D I V I D U A LL Y A PPELL EE AND AS F OR M E R T R US T E E OF T HE AGR E E M E NTOFT R US TF OR THE ANN E . M ALON E TRUST

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

FR O M THE 96TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUC TI ON A p p e ll a n t A n n E . M a lo n e a n d A p p e ll e e G a r yR . M a lo n e a re s ib li n g s . In t w o poi nt s, A nn ar gue s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by g r ant i ng Gar y’ s m ot i onsf or t r adi t i onal an d no- evi dence sum m ar y j udg m entregar di ng hercl ai m s of br each2 ... A n n h a s a l s o e n g a g e d in o t h e rlit ig a t io n in v o lv in g G a r ya n d t h e ir

m o th e r’s e s ta te . See Mal onev. Mal

one , No. 10- 04- 00011

- CV , 200 5 W L 13 03 36 6, at*1 ( Tex . A pp.— W aco, June 1 , 20 05 ) ( m em . op) ( hol di ng t hat V i v i a n M a l o n e ’s es tate , o f w h i c h G a ry i s i n d e p e n d e n t ex e c u to r, w a s e n ti tl e d to f und s i n V i v i a n M al one’ s bank account aft erV i vi an’ s deat h despi t e execut ed si gna t ur e c ar d t hatpurpo r t ed l y m adeA nn a nd Vi vi an j oi nthol der s oft he a c c o u n t w i th ri g h t o f s u rv i v o rs h i p ). 2 o ff id u c ia r yd u t y a n d c o n s p ir a c y t o b r e a c h f id u c ia r y d u t y f ile d a g a in s tG a r yin h i s c a p a c i tya s fo rm e r tru s te e o f th e A n n E . M a l o n e T ru s t. W e w i l l a ffir m . II. B AC KG ROUND In M a y2 0 0 2 , th e A n n E . M a l o n e T ru s t w a s e s ta b l i s h e d . G a rya n d A n n ’s m ot her , V i vi an J. M al one , di ed i n N ove m ber 200 2. G ary s erved ast r us t eef or t he t r ust f r om i t s i ncepti on unt i l M ar ch 31 , 20 05 . Th en R i t a M a l o n e— al so A nn’ s si bl i ng— served as t r ust ee unti l she passed aw ay i n June 20 07 . A fter Ri t a ’ s d e a t h, Cat hyO’ Del l

— Ri t a ’ s n i e c e — s e r ve d a s t r us t e e u nt i l M a r c h 24, 2 0 0 8 , w h e n A n n a n d C a t h ys ig n e d a n a g r e e d o r d e rt h a tT h o m a s O ’D e ll w o u ld serve as t r ust ee. I n t h e i n t e r i m , o n J u l y 8, 20 04 , An n f i l e d t h i s s u i t a g a i n s t h erf our si bl i ngs, G ar y, Ri t a, Li nda P. C happ el l , and Lyn n C . M al one. 2Thi s sui ti nvol ved t w el ve di f f er entca us esofa cti on , i ncl udi ng a ss aul t , i nt ent i ona l i nf l i ct i on of em ot i on di st r ess, i nvasi on of pr i vacy, def am at i on, f al se i m pr i sonm ent , t r espass t o r ea l pr ope rt y, co nve r si on, f r aud , m i sr epr es en t at i on, ci vi l co ns pi r ac y, an d3

br each off i duci ar y duty. A f t erRi t a passed aw ay, A nn f i l ed herf ourt h am ended or i gi nal pet i t i on and add ed Pat r i ck C ona w ay, exe cut or of Ri t a’ s es t at e, and C at hy O ’ D el l . O n Febr uar y 1, 2 0 0 8 , A nn f i l ed hersi xt h am ended or i gi nal p e ti ti o n , d e l e ti n g P a tr i c kas a p a rt yto th e su i t. O n Janu ar y 17 , 20 08 , G ar y and Li nda f i l ed no- evi dence and t r adi t i onal m ot i onsf orsum m ary j udgm ent . I n t hei rno- evi den ce m ot i ons , G ary a nd L i nda assert ed t hatt her e w as no evi dence t o suppo rtany ofA nn’ s causes ofact i ons. G ar y and Li nda al so m oved, i n t hei r t r adi t i onal sum m ar y j udg m entm ot i ons, t hat m any of A nn’ s cl ai m s w er e ba rr e d b yt he st at ut e ofl i m i t at i ons ort hatt hey c ou l d c on c l us i ve l y e s t a bl i s h no l i a bi l i t y. Ann f i l e d he rr e s po ns e o n Fe br ua r y 8, 200 8. The t r i al co urtc on du cted a hea r i ng on Fe br uary 15, 2008 , an d on Feb r uary 27, 2008 , t he t r i al co urtgr ant ed sum m aryj udgm enton a l l gr ounds exc eptA nn’ s cl ai m s f orbr ea ch off i duc i ary du t y, c i vi l co ns pi r ac y, an d i nt ent i onal i nf l i ct i on of em ot i onal di st r ess. A nn t hen f i l ed hersevent h am ended or i gi nal pe t i t i on, r em ovi ng L i nda asa part y t o t hi s su i t . O n M ar ch 7, 2008 , t he t r i al co urtgr ant ed su m m ary j udgm enti n f avo rofG ary on t hes e t hr ee r em ai ni ng gr oun ds. A s m ent i oned above, C at hy O ’ D el l and A nn si gned an agr eed or der dat ed M ar ch 24, 200 8, w her eby Thom as O ’ D el l bec am e t r us t ee oft he A nn E. M a l o n e tr u st. T h i s ord e r a l so d i sm i ss e d C a th y , w i th p rej u d i c e , fr o m this su i t. Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed.3 ... A n n a p p e a l s o n l yt h e p o rti o n o f th e tri a l c o u rt’s o rd e r g ra n ti n g G a ry

s u m m a r yju d g m e n to n h e rc la im s f o rb r e a c h o ff id u c ia r yd u t ya n d c iv il c o n s p i ra c y . A n n d o e s n o t a p p e a l th e tri a l c o u rt’s o rd e r g ra n ti n g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n to n h e rin t e n t io n a l in f lic t io n o fe m o t io n a l d is t r e s s c la im . 4 III. D I SCU SSI ON In tw o p o in t s , A n n a rg u e s th a t th etri a l c o u rt e rre d b yg ra n ti n g G a ry ’s m o ti o n s fo r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t reg a rding h e r cl a i m s o f bre a c h o f f i d u c i a ry d u ty and co ns pi r ac y t o br ea ch f i duc i ary du t y. 3W e di sagr ee. A . N o- Evi dence S um m ary Judg m entStandar d ofRev i ew 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 a y , w i t h o u tp r e s e n t i n g e v i d e n c e , m o v e f o rs u m m a r yj u d g m e n to n t he gr ound t hatt her e i s no e vi den ce t o s upportan es se nt i al el em entoft he non m ovant’ s cl ai m o r def ense. Tex. R. C i v. 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. ; Johns on v. Bre wer & Pr itch 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 ot i on un l es s t he nonm ova nt p r oduc ess um m ary j udgm ent e v i d e n c e th a t ra i s e s a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te ri a l fa c t. S eeTex. R. Ci v. P. 1 6 6 a (i ) & c m t.; Sw. Elec . Pow er C o. v. Grant, 73 S. W . 3d 211, 215 ( Tex. 2 0 0 2 ). 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 ryju 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 tm 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 le5

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 . S udan v. Su dan , 199 S. W . 3d 291, 292 ( Tex. 2006 ) . I ft he nonm ova nt br i ngsf or w ar d m or e t han a sci nt i l l a ofpr obati ve evi dence t hatr 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 ryj 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 . 2d 266, 269 ( Tex. A pp. — San A nt oni o 199 8, pet . den i ed) . Butw hen t he e v i d e n c e i s s o w e a k t h a t i t d o e s n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n c r e a t e a m e r e s ur m i se or suspi ci on of a f act , l ess t han a sci nt i l l a ofevi dence exi st s, and a no- evi dence s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t i s p ro p e r. K i ndred v. Con/Chem , I nc. , 650 S. W . 2d 61, 63 ( Tex . 19 83 ) . W e r e vi ew a no- evi dence sum m ar y j udg m entf orevi dence t hat
w oul d enabl e r easonabl e and f ai r - m i nded j ur or s t o di f f eri n t hei rconcl usi ons. Ham i lton v. W

i l so n , 249 S . W . 3d 425, 426 ( Tex. 2008 ) ( ci t i ng City of Kel ler v. W i l so n , 1 6 8 S .W .3 d 8 0 2 , 8 2 2 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 )). B . N o -Ev i d e n c eS u m m a ry J u d g m e n t on B rea c h o f Fi d u c i a ry D u ty I n he rf i r stpoi nt , A nn ar gue s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by g r ant i ng sum m ar y j udg m enton hercl ai m thatG ar y br eached hi s f i duci ar y duty ast r ust ee of t he t r us t . G ary cou nt er s t hat t her e i s no e vi den ce t o s upportea ch el em ent o fA n n ’ s c l a i m. T o rec o v e r fo r a b rea c h o f f i d u c i a ry d u ty, a p l a i n ti ff m u st sh o w tha t a fi d u c i a ryd u tye x i s te d , b re a c h o f th a td u ty , c a u s a ti o n , a n d d a m a g e s . S ee6

g en era l lyAva ryv. Ba n ko f

Am. , N. A. , 7 2 S . W . 3d 7 79 , 7 92 ( Tex . A pp. — D al l as 2 0 0 2 , p e t. d e n i e d ). T o s u p p o rt h e r c o n te n ti o n th a t th e tri a l c o u rt e rre d b y g ra n ti n g s u m m a ry j udgm ent , A nn l i st s si x i t em s t hats he cl ai m s ar e e vi den ce t hatcr ea t e a ge nui ne is s u e o f m a te ri a l fa c t a s to w h e th e r G a ryb re a c h e d h i s fi d u c i a ryd u tyi n h is ca pac i t y a s t r us t ee . W e w i l l ad dr es s ea ch oft hes e i t em s i n t ur n. F ir s t , A n n a s s e rt s t h a tG a r ya n d R it a f u n d e d t h e t r u s tw it h $ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 in 20 02 , w hi ch i ncl uded $3 00 , 00 0 i n G ener al M ot or s bon ds and $1 00 , 00 0 i n an i nt er es t - bea r i ng a cc ountw i t h BankofO m aha . Secon d, A nn as se rt s t hatasof D ec em ber12, 200 7, onl y $40 5, 028 . 15 r em ai ned i n t he t r us t . A l t hough A nn d o e s n o t ci te a n yau th o ri ty a s to w h ythe se i tem s c o n sti tu te e v i d e n c e o f a br each off i duci ar y duty, she d o e s, in th e anal ysi s ofhersecond i ssue, m ake t h e p r o c la m a t i o n t h a tt h e c o r p u s o ft h e t r u s t“ is $ 1 4 3 ,1 9 6 .1 1 le s s t h a n it shoul d be. ” SeeTex. R. A pp. P. 3 8 . 1 ( i ) (s t at i ng t hata “b r i efm us tco nt ai n a cl ea ran d c onc i sear gum entf ort he con t ent i onsm ade , w i t h a ppr opr i at e c i t at i ons t o a ut hor i t i esan d t o t he r ec or d” ) . Thes e as se rt i onsdo notde m ons t r at e a ny o f th e e l e m e n ts o f a b re a c h o ff id u c ia r yd u tyc l a i m . Se eI nreM. D. C. , 171 S . W . 3 d 3 61, 364 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l as2005 , no p et . ) ( hol di ng t hatbr ea ch of fi d u c i a ry d u ty c l a i m req u i res ev i d e n c e tha t a d u ty b ytr u ste e i s o w e d to b e n e fi c i a ry ); Brazospo rtBa n k of Tex. v. O ak Par

k To wnho uses , 889 S. W . 2d7

676, 685 ( Te x. App.

— Hous t on [ 14t h Di s t . ] 1994, w r i t de ni e d) ( ho l di ng t hat th e re w a s n o e v i d e n c e th a t fi d u c i a ryd u tyw a s b re a c h e d ). I n hert hi r d l i st ed i t em , A nn assert s th a t G ar y has neverpr ovi ded an accoun t i ng t o herr egar di ng t he t r ust . Bu t A nn does not poi ntt o any evi dence i n the rec o rd d e m o n strati n g th a t G a ry, u n d e r t h e tr u st i n stru m e n t, h a d a d u ty to a c c o u n t to A n n d u ri n g h i s t e n u re a s tru s te e . Se eI nreM. D. C. , 171 S. W . 3d at36 4. Furt her , A nn pr ovi ded no evi dence t hatshe everdem anded an a c c o u n ti n g w h i l e G a ryw a s tru s te e . S eeTe x. Pr op . Cod e Ann . § 11 3. 151 ( V er non 20 07 ) ( pr ovi di ng t he t er m s underw hi ch a benef i ci ar y m ay m a ke a d e m a n d o n the tr u s te e f o r a tr u st a c c o u n ti n g ). T h i s a ss e rt i o n also fai l s to dem ons t r at e evi den ce of any oft he el em ent s ofa br ea ch off i duc i ary du t y by G ary. In h e rre m a in in g t h r e e lis t e d it e m s , A n n a r g u e s t h a tG a r ym a d e a o n e -t im e di st r i but i on of$ 5, 000 t o he rbutm adeno o t herdi st r i but i onst o he rw hi l e h e w ast r us t ee ; t hatG ary a dm i t t ed t hat ast r us t ee oft he t r us t , he i nve st ed i n l ongt er m co r por at e b ondsi nt end i ng t o pr ovi de A nn w i t h a n a nnu al i nc om e o f $20 , 000 butt hati tha s not ; an d t hatG ary adm i t t ed t o w i t hhol di ng f undsoft he t r ustt o A nn i n or dert o keep herf r om bei ng w i t h herm ot herat t he end of her m ot her ’ s l i f e and t o “puni sh” herf orpastact s t hat G ar y f oun d unaccep t abl e. G a ryre s p o n d s th a t th e tru s t i s a d i s c re ti o n a rytru s t a n d th a t, d u ri n g h i s te n u re8

a s trus tee , i t w a s w i th i n h i s d is c re ti o n to d e term i n e w h e n an d w h a t am o u n ts w er e t o bedi st r i but ed t o Ann. W e a gr ee w i t h Gar y. U nde ra di sc r et i ona r y t r us t , t he ben ef i ci ary i s ent i t l ed onl y t o t he i nco m e orpr i nci pal t hatt he t r us t ee , i n hi s di sc r et i on, s hal l di st r i but e t o t he ben ef i ci ary. S ee Kol pack v. To r

res , 829 S. W . 2d 913, 915 ( Te x. App . — Cor pu s Chr i s t i 1992 , w r i tde ni ed) ( ci t i ng G. Bogert , T he L aw ofTr us t s and Tr us t ee s § 228 ( 2d ed. 1 9 7 9 )) . T h e b e n e fi c i a ry of a d i sc reti o n a ry t rus t c a n n o t c o m p e l th e tr u ste e to p a yh e r o r to a p p l yfo r h e r u s e a n yp a rt o f th e tru s t p ro p e rty . Id . The t r us ti n t hi s ca ses pec i f i ca l l y s t at est hat“ The Tr us t ee s hal l ha ve com pl et e di scr et i on t o pay or use . . . t he net i ncom e and/ or cor pus oft he T r ust a s th e T ru s te e , i n i ts s o l e d i s c re ti o n , m a y d e te rm i n e to b e re a s o n a b l yn e c e s s a ry f or[ A nn] . ” W e f i r stnot e t hatG ary ha s notbe en t he onl y t r us t ee oft he A nn E. M al one T r us t . Butr ega r dl es s ofw ho w ast he t r us t ee , i tw asw i t hi n t he tr u ste e ’s d i sc reti o n to m a k e d i stri b u ti o n s to A n n , a n d a c o u rtca n n o t su b sti tu te i ts d i s c re ti o n fo r th a t o f th e tru s te e . S ee B eat y v. Bales , 677 S. W . 2d 750, 754 ( Tex . A pp. — S an A nt oni o 19 84 , w r i tr ef ’ d n. r . e. ) . W e concl ude and hol d t hat A nn pr es ent ed no evi den ce t hat G ary br ea che d any f i duc i ary du t y hem ay hav e ow ed t o A nn unde r t he t r us t and t hat t he t r i al cou rt di d noterrby grant i ng G a r y ’s n o -e v id e n c e s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t o n A n n ’s b r e a c h o ff id u c ia r yd u t yc la im . W e o v e rr u l e A n n ’s fi rst po i n t.9

C . N o -E v id e n c eS u m m a ryJ u d g m e n to n C iv il C o n s p ir a c yC la im I n he rs ec ond p oi nt , A nn a r gue s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by g r ant i ng G a r y ’s s u m m a r yju d g m e n to n h e rc la im t h a tG a r yc o n s p ir e d t o b r e a c h h is fi d u c i a ry d u ty to h e r. G a ry c o u n ters th a t A n n “p u t f o rt h n o ev i d e n c e o f a br each off i duci ar y duty t hatpr oxi m at el y caused dam age t o A nn. ” W e agr ee th a t A n n p res e n ted n o ev i d e n c e tha t G a ry w a s i n v o l v e d i n a c i v i l co n sp i rac yto br ea ch anyal l ege d f i duc i ary du t y heow ed t o Ann. Thus , t he t r i al courtdi d not e rrb yg ran ti n g G a ry’s n o -ev i d e n c e su m m a ry j u d g m e n t. A n a ct i ona bl e c i vi l con sp i r ac y i s a c om bi nat i on byt w o orm or e p er so ns t o a cc om pl i sh an unl aw f ul pur pos e o rt o a cc om pl i sh a l aw f ul pur pos e b y u n l a w fu l m e a n s . Masse y v. A r m co Steel

Co. , 652 S. W . 2d 93 2 , 9 3 4 ( T ex. 1 9 8 3 ). T h e e s s e n ti a l e l e m e n ts o f a c i v i l c o n s p i ra c ya re (1 ) tw o o r m o re per so ns ; ( 2) an obj ec tt o beac com pl i sh ed; ( 3 ) a m ee t i ng oft he m i ndson t he obj ec torco ur se ofac t i on; ( 4) oneorm or e u nl aw f ul , ove rtac t s; an d (5 ) d a m a g e s a s th e p ro x i m a te re s u l t. Juhl v. A i r i ngton , 936 S. W . 2d 640, 644 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ); Tri

plex Com m c’

ns, I nc. v. Ri

ley , 900 S . W . 2d 716, 719 ( Tex. 199 5) . I ti s nott he agr ee m enti t se l fbut an i nj ur y t o t he pl ai nt i f fr es ul t i ng f r om an a c t d o n e p u r s u a n t t o t h e c o m m o n p u r p o s e t h a t g i v e s r i s e t o a c a u s e of a c ti o n fo r c i v i l c o n s p ira c y . Car rol l v. Ti m m er s Chevrolet

, I nc. , 592 S. W . 2d 92 2, 92 5 ( Tex . 19 79 ) . I n ot herw or ds, r ecover y i s notbased on t he conspi r acy10

bu t on an un de r l yi ng t ort . T i lto n v. Ma r

sh a ll, 925 S . W . 2d 672, 681 ( Tex. 1 9 9 6 ). T h u s , a c o n s p i ra c y c l a i m i s a d e ri v a ti v e to rt. Id . A n n a l l e g e d t h a t G a ry br eached hi s f i duci ar y duty ast he und er l yi ng to rtt o suppo rtherconspi r acy c l a i m . B re a c h o f fi d u c i a ryd u tyi s a re c o g n i z e d c a u s e o f a c ti o n th a t w i l l s u p p o rt a c i v i l c o n s p i ra c yc l a i m . S e eL esi ka r v. Rapp ep o rt, 33 S. W . 3d 282, 302 ( Tex. A pp. — Tex ar kana 2 00 0, pet . d eni ed) . Bu t , as expl ai ned abo ve, A nn has f ai l ed t o show any evi dence as t o how G ar y br eached hi s f i duci ar y duty t o A n n as tr u ste e o f t h e tr u st. Furt her m or e, A nn c ann otpoi nt t o a ny e vi den ce , ci r cum st ant i al or ot her w i se, suppor t i ng hercl ai m ofci vi l conspi r acy. The onl y potent i al evi dence t h a tA n n p o in t s t o t h is c o u rtis t h a tG a r y , a s t r u s t e e , m a d e lo a n s t o h im s e lfin hi s capaci t y as execut oroft he Est at e ofV i vi an M a l one f r om t he t r ust ; t hat G ar y accept ed l oan pr oceeds f r om Ri t a, w ho succeeded G ar y as t r ust ee; t hat t he l oan s w er e n ot doc um ent ed i n t he ac cou nt i ngs pert ai ni ng t o t he Es t at e o f V i vi an M al one; t hatt he co r pus oft he t r usti s l ess t han A nn exp ect s i tt o be; and t hatG ar y m ade onl y a one- t i m e $5 , 00 0 d i st r i buti on t o A nn w hi l e he w as tr u ste e . B u t t h e se fac ts a re n o th i n g m o re th a n ev e n ts th a t m i g h t give ri se to specul at i ve i nf er ences com p o u n d e d upo n one ano t hert hatG ar y and R i t a had a m eet i ng of m i nds w i t h t he obj ectb ei ng t o br each t hei ral l eged f i duci ar y duti es to A n n an d are i n su ffi c i e n t t o p rov e th a t G a ry e n g a g e d in a civi l co n sp i rac yto11

ha r m he r. S ee Rayon v. Ener gy Speci

alti es, I nc. , 121 S . W . 3d 7, 16 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2 00 2, no pet . ) ( hol di ng t hatp art y m ay not est abl i sh a vi t al fa c t b yp i l i n g o n e i n fe re n c e u p o n a n o th e r). V i tal fac ts m a yn o t b e p rov e d b yu n rea so n a b l e i n fere n c e s from o th e r f a c ts an d ci r cu m stanc es . S chlum ber ger Wel l Surveyi

ng Cor p. v. Nortex O i

l & Gas Cor p. , 435 S. W . 2d 854, 858 ( Tex. 1969 ) ( ci t i ng ‘ N o Ev i den ce ’ an d ‘ I ns uf f i ci ent Evi dence, ’ 38 Tex. L. Rev . 35 9, 3 63 ) . A part y m ay not est abl i sh a vi t al f act b yp i l i n g o n e in fe re n c e u p o n a n o th e r. Id . T o p e r m it p r o o f in t h is f a s h io n w o u ld vi ol at e t he l ong - est abl i shed r ul e t hat r equi r es pr oof of any vi t al f actby evi dence a m o u n ti n g to s o m e t h in g m o re th a n a m e re s c i n ti l l a . Joskev. I rvi ne , 91 Tex. 574 , 582, 44 S. W . 1059 , 1063 ( 189 8 ) . W e co ncl ude an d hol d t hatA nn pr es ent ed no e vi den ce t hatG ary e nga ged i n a ci vi l co ns pi r ac y t o breach an y p o t e n t ia l f id u c ia r yd u t yh e o w e d t o A n n . T h u s , w e h o ld t h a tt h e t r ia l c o u rtd id n o te r rb yg r a n t in g G a r y ’s n o -e v id e n c e s u m m a r yju d g m e n ta s t o A n n ’s c iv il c o n sp i rac yclai m an d o v e rr u l e A n n ’s se c o n d p o i n t. I V. C ONC L USI ON H a v i n g o v e rru l e d b o th o f A n n ’s p o i n ts , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: M EI ER, LI V I N G STO N , an d W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Aug us t20, 2009