Opinion ID: 702553
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alleged breach of fiduciary duty by BSC

Text: 13 As an alternative basis for concluding that BSC wrongfully failed to grant Anros the full benefit of the extension negotiated with the sellers, Anros suggests that BSC breached a fiduciary duty owed to Anros. In response, BSC argues that there was no fiduciary relationship between it and Anros because the partnership agreement provided that Anros did not become a partner until it funded the sale. The defendant concedes that it was not an official partner in TTP but argues that BSC's course of conduct towards Gaw, Anros's managing partner, created a fiduciary relationship. That is, Anros argues that references to Anros as a partner by BSC employees, as well as the future legal partnership contemplated in the amended partnership agreement, created a fiduciary relationship between BSC and Anros. 14 Under Texas law, a fiduciary relationship can be created outside of a formal agreement in the context of informal moral, social, domestic, or personal relationships in which one person trusts and relies on another. 10 A fiduciary relationship only exists where a special confidence is placed in another .... 11 This relationship, however, is an extraordinary one and will only be established in exceptional cases. 12 15 Anros argues that when employees of BSC referred to Anros as BSC's partner that created a fiduciary relationship outside the partnership agreement. Further, Anros argues that it relied on these statements and BSC's course of conduct as confirmation that it could rely on BSC as a partner. Subjective trust of another, however, does not establish a fiduciary relationship. 13 Also, the fact that BSC employees referred to Anros as its partner is not determinative of the legal relationship .... 14 Anros cannot show that its relationship with BSC included the special confidence contemplated by Texas law. Rather, Anros and BSC entered into an arms-length business transaction with sophisticated parties on both sides of the bargaining table. 15 Further, both parties contracted for a partnership after the purchase of the Thanksgiving Tower. Without evidence of a clear intent to create a relationship of confidence, the overriding intent of the parties to postpone partnership until the sale was completed, as evidenced by the written partnership agreement, cannot be modified. We affirm, therefore, the district court's decision that, as a matter of law, there was no fiduciary relationship between Anros and BSC. 16