Court Opinion

ID: 4074672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-30 05:18:43.112698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:33:09.512640
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                                     03-15-00008-CV
                                                                                             7476585
                                                                          THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                     AUSTIN, TEXAS
                                                                               10/21/2015 2:05:15 PM
                                                                                   JEFFREY D. KYLE
                                                                                              CLERK

                                                                     FILED IN
                       No. 03-15-00008-CV                     3rd COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                  AUSTIN, TEXAS
                                                             10/26/2015 11:20:15 AM
                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS                         JEFFREY D. KYLE
                 THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT                              Clerk

                      PAUL D. SIMMONS
                        APPELLANT

                                 V.

                    TERESAA. SIMMONS
                        APPELLEE

oN ÀPPEAL FIìOM ',l't{F' 1 19 r'rr JUDI(),,\L DIS'|RICT COURI OF
             .I'OM
                    GIì]ìI]N COUN'I'Y,1'LìXAS
                    cAUSLì NO. It-1 3-0232-ir

                    BRIEF OF APPELLEE

                             Gar:re   tt Clarl982 S.W.2d 881, 886                (l'cx. 1998). 'l'he plaintiff must demonstrate only rhat it

wa,q   diffìcult to discover the ìnjnty, the plaintìff dc)cs not neecl to l)rovc that it was

impossiblc.        See   S.I/.   u.   R. l/.,933 S.W.2cl 1 (fcx. 1996),

         An injuty is "objecuvcly vetifiable" if the rnjury's cxisrcnce and thc defendant's

wrongful act cânûot be disputed and                 tl-re facts   on which hability is assertcd are

dcnronstr¿ted by ditect physical cvidcnce. IJal                    u. She /l   Oi/ Co.,986 S.\ø.2d 172,771

('I'ex. App.   -   Cotpus Chdsu 1999, pet. denìecì). 'I-his might best be demor.rstrared by

example. An injury resulting from a brcach of conttact is objectìvely vcr:ifìable by

k;olring at the clefcndant's contract wìth              a   thírd pany.        Sae   Oliuer u. Rogers,976 S.W.2d

'792,802 (I'cx. ,,\pp.       * Iloustor.r [1" Dist,] 1998, pet. dcnrcd),                   \(/hcteas, sexual abuse

by a parcnt would not be objecuvcly vcriÂable because there is no scicntific colrsensus
or how to gaugc thc üue or falsity of recovered                     rnernc¡ries upotr which tl-re clairn

wonld be based.          -1¿¿   .r.V.,933 S.W.2d at     18.

             'I'hc first part oI tl're inquiry is whetl-rer 'fcresa's injury is inl-rerendy

urrdiscoveral¡le. 'l-etcsa did not teceìve paymcnt of rctircment funds                          sl're   was awarded,

aud she did not rcceive thetn because Paul teceived tl-rern fìrst and did 11ot pây thcn'ì to

I'rer,   but paicl bílls instc¿d. (1ìlì 1:52; lîÌì#3,4). \71'ren Paul teceived the rctircment

lunds awarded to 'I'eresa, a ficluciary obligatiol'ì in favor of 'I'eresa rvas creatcd,                         a

collsttuctlvc trust was pìaced on those fuuds for the bcnefit of 'l'eresa, and Paul owed

a ûduciary lcsponsibility to pay tl-re funds to'I'eresa. Sec. 9.011,'I'ex. lìarnily Cocle

(Veruon's 2015). Paul l¡rcachcd his fiduciary rcsponsibiLiry to'I'etesa by not paying

the tctitenent fi-urds he l'reld to 'I'eresa.

             'l'hankful\' 'l'cxas casclaw is clcar: that injurics atisurg fi:om a bl:each of                a

fiducialy duty are considercd inhetentll' undiscovcrable 5.V.,933 S.W.2d at                                B;

ConþnlerA.r.roc.r, 918 S,W.2d            tt   456; Tlaat    u. George,71      S.\)í.3d 904,912 (I'ex. App.          -
'I'exatkana 2002, no pet.). Gener:al\', a party who ìs ov¡ed a fìclucìar:y cluty ìs relieved

of tesponsibilit.y of clilìgent incluiry into the fiduciar:y's conduct                  as   long as thc

rclauonslrip exists.       ,1.   Z,   933 S.W.2cl at   8;   'fre ail u. Tre   ni/, 311 S.W.3cl 11,4, 123 (I'ex.

App.     -   Ileaumont 2010, no pct.). FIowcver, oûce ficluciary misconduct becomes

apparent, it cannot bc ignorecl, r:egalcllcss of the natutc of the rclatìon ship. ConpuÍer

zl¡socs.,91B S.W.2d at 45ó. 'I'hcrc can bc no othel conclusion but that 'l'ercs¿ has rnet
hct first butdcn of demonstrating tl'rat hcr injuty, suffering from           a breacl-r   of hduciar'y

dr-rty, is   thc qpe of lljury that is   "inhegrt\'    undisc<¡verablc".

                             Teresa's Iniury   is Obiectively Verifrable

            Jlvrdence at trial was unclisputecì tl'rat Paul lcceived the rctircmcnt funds       ar-rd

spent thc cntire arnount r:cccived to pay bílls. (Clì:52,        llfffi,4).   (ll1ì2:5, L 9-24). 'I'he

injury can be quantrÊcd and determiucd wrtl-r cettainty, as opposed to otheÍ injurics

which can be disputcd and cannot bc dcmonstrated by dir:cct physrcal evidelrce.

Iìxarnples of the latter al:c claims ptovecl by ân cxpcrt opiniorl based on rcpressed or

tecovelcd rnernories which are trot suffìcient to objectivcly verify ân injury; there was

no scicntiûc collscnsus on how to gaugc truth or falsity of tcc<;vcrcd rncrnorìcs. J.lZ,

933 S.\?.2d at 18. 'I'etesa's injury being "objectìvcly vcrifiable", the sccond prong               of

the   te   st I'ras been mct, and the cliscor.cÐ¡ rule applics to dclay application of thc statutc

of limitatjons to Paul's bteach of fìducìary duty.

               Ewdence lVas Sufficient Teresa Exerc.ísed Due DiIlgence and
                        Filed Claim Within Two Yeats of Nottce

           'I'hc evrdcnce adduceci at triâl rcgarding discovcry of thc injury and cfforts to

discovcl tl're injury was tlle tcslimolry of 'I'eresa, who tcstìfìed as follows:

a Ohay, Now, when did you fìtst learn that your: husband had casl'red in his
tetitetnent witl-r Conoco?

                                                  l0
A,         I lcarned, uhm, whcn rny daughtcr, gosh, uhfiì,              vzas   -   just happcncd
                                                                                 rncnúon             t<¡
when shc was tallang to me that he I'rad gotten aggravatcd ât d1e ilrsural-ìce compâlly
oï somethû1g for going up or-ì their pticcs and he just paìd his horne ofl FIc rooh his
moncy out of Conoco ancl paid his hr¡rnc o ff.

a          Okay. r\nd thât would Ìrave bcen I'row long ago?

        Uhûr     lln   tl-rirrking that was somewhere    n   2012.
^.
a      Okay.

      Norv, let me tell you, I dcx-r't cliscuss witlr hrm with rny kìcìs bccause                    I dolr't
^ my kids to be dr:ug lrto any krncl of snrff like that.
u/ant

a      Okay. But she just happcncd to trention that?

A.     Yeah.

a      And then at tlìat point in time you st^rted           -   what did you         t1-y   to clo then.

,\.     I started colrtactillg diffctent, uhm, attomeys. I thought at the tirnc that he was
living in New Mcxrco, ar-rd so I contactccl a1l attorûc)¡ in Nerv Mcxico and spol