First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court reviewed summary judgment in a dispute concerning the misappropriation of church funds entrusted to a law firm. The Court held that the church could pursue equitable relief for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty without proving causation and actual damages, but affirmed judgment for the attorney on the civil conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting claims. The Court also addressed preservation of the aiding-and-abetting claim and the requirements for conspiracy liability.

Holdings

1. A client seeking equitable remedies for an attorney's breach of fiduciary duty, including forfeiture of fees or disgorgement of improper benefits, need not prove causation or actual damages. A client seeking actual damages must provide evidence that the fiduciary's conduct caused those damages.
2. The church did not waive its claim for equitable remedies because its appellate briefing fairly included the subsidiary issue, even though it did not use the words equitable, forfeiture, or disgorgement.
3. The church did not present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact that Parker specifically intended to agree with Lamb to steal the church's money or that any later agreement to conceal the theft caused the church's damages.
4. The church failed to preserve an aiding-and-abetting claim because its pleadings and summary-judgment response did not give Parker fair notice that it asserted that distinct claim. In any event, the evidence did not show that Parker knowingly and wrongfully assisted or encouraged Lamb's theft before the theft was completed.
5. The evidence did not raise a genuine issue of material fact that Parker and Lamb formed a joint venture to steal or conceal the church's money.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the church needed evidence that Parker's alleged breach of fiduciary duty caused actual damages to survive summary judgment when it sought equitable remedies such as fee forfeiture or disgorgement.
2. Whether the church waived its claim for equitable remedies by failing to use the terms equitable, forfeiture, or disgorgement in its appellate briefing.
3. Whether the summary-judgment evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact that Parker conspired with Lamb to steal or cover up the misappropriation of the church's money.
4. Whether the church preserved an aiding-and-abetting claim and presented evidence that Parker knowingly and wrongfully assisted or encouraged Lamb's theft.
5. Whether the evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact that Parker and Lamb formed a joint venture to misappropriate or conceal the church's money.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded