In Thunder Rose Enters. v. Kirk, the plaintiffs sued the defendant for various claims, including breach of fiduciary duty based on an alleged partnership dispute. No. 13-15-00431-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3481 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi April 20, 2017, no pet. history). The jury determined that the defendant did not breach a duty, and the plaintiffs appealed.
The court of appeals initially held that the relationship between partners is fiduciary in character and “imposes upon all the participants the obligation of loyalty to the joint concern and of the utmost good faith, fairness, and honesty in their dealings with each other with respect to matters pertaining to the enterprise.” Id. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs/appellants did not explain in their briefing how their complaints constituted a breach of fiduciary duty:
Although they extensively cite the trial record, appellants offer no references to legal authority indicating that the specific actions purportedly taken by Kirk, even if they were conclusively established by the evidence, constitute breaches of his fiduciary duty. They also do not explain which of the duties listed in the jury charge were breached by any of the alleged actions. In any event, the evidence conflicted with regard to these actions and the jury was entitled to believe the contrary evidence. We therefore determine that the evidence did not conclusively establish that Kirk breached his fiduciary duties in any of the manners specified in the jury charge.