Sapramjeet Singh v. Tanweer Ahmed and Sarwat Ahmed

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-24-00305-CV ________________ SAPRAMJEET SINGH, Appellant V. TANWEER AHMED AND SARWAT AHMED, Appellees ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 457th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22-11-14788-CV ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Sapramjeet “Jack” Singh (“Singh” or “Plaintiff”) sued Tanweer Ahmed (“Ahmed” or “Defendant”) and Sarwat Ahmed (collectively “the Ahmeds” or “Defendants”) over Singh’s 2021 purchase of Defendants’ home. Singh alleged damages, claiming that he relied to his detriment on Defendants’ fraudulent misrepresentations about the condition of the property. Although Singh initially pleaded claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”), common 1 law fraud, statutory fraud in a real estate transaction, civil conspiracy, and negligence, he abandoned the civil conspiracy and part of his negligence claims during trial. At the close of Singh’s case, the Ahmeds moved for a directed verdict, citing the lack of evidence of material misrepresentation, reliance, or damages. The trial court granted the Ahmeds’ motion as to all Singh’s remaining causes of action, explaining that Singh had not shown justifiable reliance, causation, or damages. Singh appealed, arguing that the record contained legally sufficient evidence to support his claims, and in the alternative, that the trial court erred in limiting the testimony of an expert witness who could have provided evidence of causation and damages. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. BACKGROUND The Ahmeds were the original owners of the house, which was built in 2011. In May 2021, the Ahmeds sold the property to Singh, but when additional bulkhead problems became apparent, as did issues with the pool and retaining wall, Singh sued the Ahmeds alleging that the Ahmeds fraudulently concealed the damage. We summarize the pertinent evidence below. Singh’s Testimony Singh testified that he was a real estate broker, and that on May 21, 2021, he purchased the Ahmeds’ property as an investment. The purchase price was 2 $1,600,000 and the transaction included both the real property and a boat that Ahmed purchased for nearly $100,000. Referring to the seller’s disclosure, a document which “conveys anything that the previous owners know about the property at the time of sale or at the time of contract[,]” Singh testified that the Ahmeds disclosed no defects in most of the property’s systems, including the retaining wall. Although the seller’s disclosure stated that the generator needed a battery, Ahmed told Singh that it instead needed “an automatic starter switch.” Ahmed also informed Singh before the closing date that during Hurricane Harvey, a palm tree fell into the canal, causing the bulkhead to “bulge out[,]” but that information was not included on the seller’s disclosure. Ahmed told Singh that he thought the bulkhead repairs would cost about $50,000 to $60,000, which was why Ahmed included the boat in the sale. After learning that the bulkhead needed “a little repair[,]” as Ahmed phrased it, but before the sale closed, Singh had his property manager assess the damage. The project manager “saw the little piece of bulkhead that was pushed out[,]” but thought the damage was “nothing that stands out [] of the ordinary.” According to Singh, when Singh told Ahmed that he planned to have the property inspected, Ahmed replied that he had an inspection report and provided that report to Singh. Singh testified that he relied on that report and the seller’s disclosure and that he would not have bought the property if Ahmed had disclosed the issues with the pool, retaining wall, and bulkhead. Although Singh could not locate that report, he recalled 3 that Ahmed stated that he “was going through a divorce and he needed to speed things up, and so here’s an inspection report, there’s no issues with the house, and that’s what I relied on.” Singh stated that the report “did not show anything that would cause any alarms.” Singh described the spatial relationship between the bulkhead and retention wall, stating, “[t]he retention wall sits on top of the bulkhead.” Singh further stated that the “entire bulkhead on this side is covered by a deck,” so that “[y]ou cannot see the bulkhead . . . [or] the retention wall. It’s all hidden.” According to Singh, Ahmed told him that “he just installed a brand-new deck because the previous deck flew away because of the storm [Hurricane Harvey]. There is no way to test, to check that bulkhead, what it was behind that deck or the stairs that were built.” Since Ahmed purportedly told Singh that he installed a new deck “after the storm,” Singh surmised that Ahmed replaced the deck “maybe a year before [the sale], perhaps.” Singh first became concerned about structural issues with the property when the pool began losing water because some of the pipes had cracked “due to shifting.” The repair estimate was $150,000. When Singh noticed that the patio had separated from the dwelling, a condition that was not present when he bought the property, Singh called some contractors, including Kimberly Munsinger. Singh and the contractors discussed Singh’s concerns, including why the back patio seemed to be sloping toward the water. Singh learned that “the retention wall that was not 4 supposed to be built on a bulkhead had no tiebacks, and that wall was leaning further into – against the home, which was causing a major drift, and so it was eroding underneath the patio.” As Singh described the situation, “the sidewalk had dropped three and a half feet below. Soil was missing underneath. Even the – the garage, there was – the garage slab, there was soil missing underneath that. Electrical wires, gutters, everything was stretched, rebars were sticking out.” In Singh’s opinion, “this had to be going on before. It’s – it’s not something – like, there’s no soil underneath the flatwork. That soil was getting out somehow over a period of years.” It was Singh’s understanding that the damage was due to “[e]rosion, wrong soil, definitely, and a poorly designed retention wall.” Singh testified that he sold the property in August 2023 because he “couldn’t take the headache any longer. It was too much to handle, too many surprises[.]” Ahmed’s Testimony Ahmed testified that he worked with a builder to build the house as a custom home. Since Ahmed is “not an expert to design the house[,]” he gave the builder his specifications and let the builder and DTS Engineering (“DTS”) design the house. According to Ahmed, DTS’s design was used to build the retaining wall and DaRam Engineering’s design was used for the pool. Ahmed denied knowing Munsinger and that he asked her for an estimate to repair the bulkhead. Ahmed further denied that 5 anyone from Lake Conroe Marine Construction inspected the bulkhead and advised him that the bulkhead and retaining wall were failing. When asked about the inspection report, Ahmed stated that the report was generated “probably in January of 2021[]” by a potential buyer who made an offer on the property and ordered the report. Since that potential buyer could not obtain financing, the sale was not completed. In addition, Ahmed recalled that the inspection report addressed only the house, not the retaining wall. Also, Ahmed stated that he no longer had the report, having given it to Singh. Ahmed acknowledged that some items on his Seller’s Disclosure Notice were inaccurate. Specifically, Ahmed testified that although his Seller’s Disclosure Notice reflects no bulkhead, retaining wall, or pool decking damage, and states that the generator needed a battery, there was such damage and the generator needed something other than a battery. Ahmed, however, testified that he believed the generator needed only a battery. Ahmed also acknowledged having received an inspection report within the previous four years despite having denied it on his disclosure notice and that he had made an insurance claim for damage after Hurricane Harvey struck the property in 2017. Ahmed further testified that he replaced the composite decking after Hurricane Harvey but that was the only repair work done. 6 Kimberly Munsinger’s Testimony Munsinger testified that she worked for Lake Conroe Marine Construction, a company specializing in bulkheads, boathouses, and docks. Munsinger estimated that she had worked for Lake Conroe Marine Construction for eight or nine years as of the time of trial and had examined “several hundred” bulkheads per year during that time. Specifically referencing the property that is the subject of this suit, Munsinger recalled that she first inspected the approximately 200-foot bulkhead sometime between 2019 and 2021 because the Ahmeds wanted a repair estimate for it. When Munsinger evaluated the Ahmeds’ bulkhead, she observed that “the bulkhead on the canal side was – was pushing out, and it’s a wood bulkhead and you could tell there was deterioration[.]” While visiting the Ahmeds’ property, Munsinger also saw cracks in the concrete. Munsinger accordingly told the Ahmeds of her findings, prepared a repair estimate, and told the Ahmeds. She could not, however, recall the dollar amount of her estimate. Munsinger could not recall when Singh first called her but stated that it was after August 2021. During Munsinger’s second visit to the property, she noticed that “[t]he cracks were significantly more and wider[]” and “the pushout of the bulkhead had increased at that time.” 7  When deciding whether to admit Munsinger’s expert testimony about the extent and cost of needed bulkhead repairs, the trial court heard this testimony and the parties’ respective arguments regarding its admissibility outside the jury’s presence. Munsinger testified that a new wall should have been installed in front of the original wall and the gap between the two walls filled with stabilized sand at a cost of approximately $400,000 to $500,000. Munsinger wrote an estimate and gave it to the Ahmeds but no longer had a copy of her estimate. Munsinger also testified that she told the Ahmeds “that the bulkhead was failing, that the bulkhead was not properly installed, and that if they didn’t do something about it right then, it was going to get worse.” According to Singh’s attorney, Munsinger also would have testified that if the Ahmeds had properly addressed the problem, it “more than likely could have been stopped[,]” and that Munsinger could see that “there had been work done on the bulkhead to mitigate” the damage. John Gultek’s Testimony Gultek testified that he was a structural engineer with over twenty-five years of experience in that field. He has owned DTS Engineering since 2000. Gultek testified that although DTS designed the house, worked with the builder, Calibre Homes, and he visited the property more than once, he never met or spoke to the Ahmeds. DTS also “did a design for the retaining wall[,]” but did not do any design work for the bulkhead, since it preexisted the other structures on the property. 8 According to Gultek, the Ahmeds did not use the retaining wall design that DTS created but instead used a design “by another engineering company.” Gultek added that DTS did not design the pool, the decking, or the stairway, and that he did not know when they were installed. He confirmed that the decking and stairway covered the bulkhead so that “you cannot observe the condition of the bulkhead.” Gultek recalled that Singh contacted DTS in 2022. DTS assessed the issues with the property, created a design to remedy those issues, and performed “some work” at the property. Documentary Evidence • Photographs of the damage to the property, taken in July, September, and December 2022, and March 2024, damage that was not present when Singh bought the property in 2021; • Structural drawings for the property; • DTS Engineering, Inc.’s disclaimer (unsigned), dated January 22, 2010; • Deeds, contracts and disclosures regarding the property, showing that Singh bought the property “as is” and that “[s]oil conditions vary greatly throughout Texas[,]” and that soil may move; • Pool repair contract (unsigned), dated December 16, 2021, showing a contract amount of $144,000; • Lake Conroe Marine Construction LLC’s bulkhead repair estimate/contract (unsigned), dated July 18, 2022, showing a price of $510,000; 9  • Appraisal, showing that Montgomery County appraised the property at $2,275,910 in 2022; • Text message exchanges regarding bulkhead and foundation. The initial message, from April 2021, states: I have to disclose you that it needs little repair on the side bulk head. May cost close to $60k. To be honest with you, I have to pay agent 3%. My payoff is $1525k. I will give you my boat which I bought for $97K and it has barely 4 hours on it. It’s a 15 seater boat. So net net is you can pay my loan off and take boat too. If it comes even less than $1.6 I am fine[.] .... On April 14, 2021, Singh messaged Ahmed, stating: Uncle ji good morning is it ok if our contractor comes to look at the bulkheads at 10:30? He won’t need to go inside. .... In June 2022, Singh messaged Ahmed asking who poured the foundation, claiming that the foundation was the cause of the problems with the deck and bulkhead area. The Trial Court’s Docket Control Order The trial court signed its Docket Control Order (“DCO”) on September 15, 2023. The DCO requires expert witness designations at least 150 days prior to trial (trial was set for June 3, 2024) as follows: A list shall be filed which includes each expert’s name, address, telephone number, the subject of the testimony, and the opinions that will be proffered by each expert. Experts not listed in compliance with this paragraph will not be permitted to testify absent a showing of an exception under Rule 193.6. A Rule 195 disclosure is not a substitute for this filed designation. 10 The deadline to designate experts under the DCO was then January 12, 2024. The DCO does not distinguish between retained and non-retained experts. Singh’s initial witness list, filed September 1, 2023, does not list Munsinger as a witness. Singh filed a new witness list on September 5, 2023, listing Munsinger with her contact information but not including the subject of Munsinger’s testimony or her opinions. Singh served his Amended Initial Disclosures on the Ahmeds on April 24, 2024. In this document, Singh identified Munsinger, provided her contact information, and stated, “Witness hired by Defendants; informed Defendants of the sever[e] problems with the bulkhead, etc. that Defendants misrepresented; provided Plaintiff with repair estimate[.]” Singh’s expert designation was also served on April 24, 2024, and designated Munsinger with the following description of her testimony: Ms. Munsinger is a contractor who specializes in bulkhead repairs and replacements. She also has knowledge as to the condition of the bulkhead on the property both before Plaintiff’s purchase of the Property and after as she has examined the property and examined the damages made the basis of this case. Therefore, Ms. Munsinger has knowledge of relevant facts regarding Plaintiff’s claim and the damages made the basis of this suit. She will testify as to the scope of reasonable and necessary repairs to the bulkhead on the property and the cause of the damages. The report for the scope of the reasonable and necessary repairs to the property and the cause of the damages on which she will testify is attached. 11  Ms. Munsinger has reviewed or may review all expert reports, repair estimates, photographs, and documents produced by Defendants. Ms. Munsinger also inspected the property. Ms. Munsinger’s findings, observations, results, mental impressions, opinions and conclusions may be supplemented within a reasonable time following receipt of additional documents or data, if any, from Defendant and or its experts. With regard to the report referenced above, what was attached to the disclosure was the repair estimate, dated July 18, 2022 from the company Munsinger worked for in 2022, which was two years after the sale of the home from the Ahmeds to Singh. Nowhere in the report does it talk about the prior condition of the bulkheading from 2019 to 2021, even though the designation stated that Munsinger also had knowledge as to the condition of the bulkhead on the property before Singh’s purchase. More importantly, the report doesn’t talk about what Munsinger saw or her impressions back in her 2022 visits. Everything that is disclosed and included in the report is from her subsequent visits when Singh owned the property. The trial court deemed the repair estimate was deficient in several ways as an expert report, especially on lost value at the time of Singh’s sale of the home. The trial court excluded Munsinger’s expert testimony ruling that Munsinger was not properly designated as an expert according to the terms of the DCO. The trial court did, however, permit Munsinger to testify as a fact witness. 12 The Directed Verdict After Singh rested his case, the Ahmeds moved for a directed verdict in their favor on the grounds that there was no evidence of (1) actionable conduct under the DTPA; (2) Singh’s reliance; (3) Ahmeds’ material misrepresentation; or (4) Singh’s damages. In support of this motion, the Ahmeds argued that they disclosed what they knew at the time of the sale, which was “what the law require[d].” Singh responded that the Ahmeds’ comments were jury questions rather than grounds for a directed verdict. Singh further argued that according to Munsinger, the retaining wall repair would cost approximately $510,000, to which the trial court replied, “that was not admitted before the jury and I didn’t hear her say it was reasonably – reasonable and necessary.” The court continued: Which was never said it was reasonable and necessary. So reasonable and necessary costs need to be proven up. So you can’t have – like, a typical – you don’t need reasonable and necessary if you’re doing like painting a wall or a minor repair, but a bulkhead repair, you would need the testimony that it’s reasonable and necessary. A lay witness cannot testify to that damage amount. .... I am going to grant the directed verdict on all causes of action, and here’s my findings. First, let’s go with – we’ll start with the damages. He was using a subsequent sale. First of all, I think that in a damage – a case like this, you have the choice of permanent or temporary. Temporary, and by the testimony of Ms. Munsinger -- it was during the voir dire testimony – we learned that she was out on the property back in 2019, 2020, or 2021 – she couldn’t remember when – and she did say that it could be repaired. So this is a temporary injury, not a permanent injury, that 13 could be repaired. Gultek said the similar thing but that was also in the offer of proof, both requiring expert testimony to give those opinions. So this is a temporary injury, not a permanent injury, so you have no damages. The temporary amount was less than the permanent amount, so you have to go with the less amount, anyway. So 500’s less than $700,000 and change. Even if we did go with that, there’s Barry v. Jackson, 309 S.W.3d 135, that gives us the rule on a subsequent sale and when you’re going to do that. This was over two years from the closing dates, and to do that, you have to adjust for market conditions. I heard no testimony from Mr. Singh that during that time, he took account for the fluctuations in market conditions, that this was a reasonable time after the injury came. So I don’t think it was a reasonable calculation of damages under that case law. Second, reliance, this is the killer. Your case is done on this case, on this alone, and this is – let me get that case for you. There’s two cases, Supreme Court cases. Mercedes-Benz USA versus Carduco, Inc., 219 Westlaw 847-845. There’s JPMorgan Chase Bank versus Orca Assets, G.P., 546 S.W.3d 648, Texas 2018, and it says an essential element of a fraud claim, and all these claims, justify – that the plaintiff justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentations or nondisclosures. Usually it’s a fact question, but it may be negated as a matter of law, and the circumstance there was sophisticated buyer and red flags. Here, it’s all there. We have a sophisticated buyer. He’s a real estate developer. We have red flags. He’s told there’s an issue with the bulkhead. This is all prior to closing. This is not in dispute. He is told there’s an issue to the bulkhead. Whether it’s misrepresentation, partial representation or not, the text message says $60,000. It may be $60,000. Mr. Singh has that available prior to closing. Exhibit 1, Bates-labeled 130, there’s a good photograph of the wood sticking out, pushing out on the side of the house where the tree fell down. Ms. Munsinger said in 2019 or 2020 or 2021, whenever she was out there, that bulkhead, the wooden portion was pushing out. That was in plain sight. Mr. Singh testified – this is not in dispute – prior to closing, he went and did his own inspection, his own walk-through of the property. There’s no way he didn’t see that bulkhead pushing out. Mr. Singh, prior to closing, in reliance on the representation of the potential damage to the bulkhead, sent his project manager there. The project manager did an inspection and found no damage. Why is that important? Because that goes to 14  show that either, A, there was no damage, and if the project manager can’t see it, how is Mr. Ahmed going to know? I heard no testimony, no damage that there was any effects, any problems in the house: doors wouldn’t close right, there’s cracks in the ceiling, foundation issues, things that maybe would show Mr. Ahmed knew something that he wasn’t telling or something. None of that was before us. We have red flags. We have a sophisticated real estate developer. There is, as a matter of law, no justifiable reliance. Causation was another thing brought up. Even if there were viable damages, which there are not in this case, Mr. Singh testified – this is per his testimony – he waited until after he closed to perform, key words, due diligence. Mr. Singh testified he waited until after he closed to perform due diligence. He said that he had six months. Right away he was – he wasn’t going to work on or fix any of the issues that he was disclosed until after he moved in. He testified he had at least six months of invoices. All that time, the property’s getting worse and we have these photographs. Worse and worse and worse and worse. To this day, it is not fixed. We have a photograph from March of 2024, March of 2024, which shows the damages are even worse than they were before. We don’t have the proper damage model. We don’t have justifiable reliance. We don’t have any expert opinions in this case. We don’t have any misrepresentations. We have causation issues. The damages were caused – and not that this is a contributory negligence case, but to show that there are intervening causes which were shown by Mr. Singh’s inaction on the property when there were visible signs. So for these reasons, I am granting the directed verdict on all causes of action. The trial court also issued the following written Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Directed Verdict: Seven weeks prior to closing, Defendant told Plaintiff “THE BULKHEAD NEEDS REPAIR” I. HISTORY On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff sued Defendants alleging numerous causes of action including, DTPA violations, Common 15  Law Fraud, Fraud in a Real Estate Transaction, Civil Conspiracy, Negligence, and Negligent Misrepresentation. On February 16, 2023 Defendants answered with a general denial. The Court called this case to trial on June 3, 2024 with both Plaintiff and Defendants appearing personally and through Counsel. Both sides announced “ready” and the Court empaneled and swore in a jury of twelve with one alternate. Plaintiff put on his case by calling himself, a contractor, an engineer, one of the Defendants and Plaintiff’s counsel for fees. Plaintiff rested his case on June 4, 2024 and Defense Counsel moved for a directed verdict on all of Plaintiff’s causes of actions, attacking every essential element. Plaintiff agreed to withdraw his conspiracy and negligence causes of action. II. UNCONTESTED FACTS In early March of 2021[,] Plaintiff was interested in purchasing a 9,306 square foot, custom built, waterfront mansion on Lake Conroe from Defendants located at 28844 Oaks on the Water, Montgomery, Texas 77356 (hereafter the “Property”) for $1,795,000. Defendants, husband and wife, were the original owners and lived on the Property since 2011. At the time of these negotiations[,] Plaintiff represented himself as he was a real estate broker who had experience buying and selling multiple million dollar properties. Defendants were represented by a broker from MHW Brokerage Services. On March 2, 2021[,] Plaintiff received Defendants’ Sellers’ Disclosure Notice that failed to reference any knowledge regarding bulkhead repairs (see Exhibit 3, pp D-0021 – D-0026). A month later and seven weeks prior to closing, on April 2, 2021, Plaintiff received notice from the Defendant Husband through text message that the bulkhead may need upwards of $60,000 worth of repair (See Defense Exhibit 2). Additionally, Plaintiff testified that Defendant Husband told him “the bulkhead needs repair.” On April 2, 2021[,] Plaintiff not only became aware that the bulkhead on the waterfront mansion needed repair, but that the Defendants had failed to properly and accurately disclose this in the March 2, 2021 Sellers’ Disclosure Notice. 16 After becoming aware of the inaccurate disclosure and need for bulkhead repair, Plaintiff ordered his project manager to inspect Defendants’ property. Defendants allowed Plaintiff’s project manager full access to conduct his inspection. Plaintiff’s project manager saw the condition of the Property during his inspection, including a portion of the bulkhead that was pushed out as well as a missing tree near the damaged bulkhead. Plaintiff’s project manager reported these findings to Plaintiff and informed Plaintiff that these damages were not out of the ordinary and that he could get this taken care of. Instead of insisting the Defendants repair the damaged bulkhead prior to closing or having his own project manager ‘take care of’ the damaged bulkhead, Plaintiff renegotiated the sale of the home. During this renegotiation, Plaintiff learned that just two months prior to his contract, Defendants had another sale fall through. Defendants provided Plaintiff with the prior potential buyer’s inspection report dated January 2021. Plaintiff testified that he reviewed the January 2021 inspection report and that it showed no issues with the bulkhead or the home. Plaintiff chose to forego the hiring of his own inspector, and instead chose to rely on this previous potential buyer’s inspection report. With the delivery of the January 2021 inspection report from Defendants, Plaintiff once again became aware of the inaccuracy of another portion of the Sellers’ Disclosure Notice, that being Defendants’ statement in the Disclosure that they were not in receipt of any inspection reports within the last four years (see section 10 of Exhibit 3, page D-0025). Plaintiff also testified that prior to closing, Defendant Husband disclosed to Plaintiff that Defendants previously replaced the stairs to the deck. Plaintiff personally visited the Property and saw the condition it was in prior to closing. Despite spending eleven weeks negotiating the purchase of the Property, seven weeks becoming aware of the need for expensive bulkhead repair as well as the inaccuracies in the Sellers’ Disclosure Notice, not to mention learning of the prior failed sale and stair replacement, Plaintiff agreed to purchase Defendants’ Property on May 21, 2021 for $1,795,000.00. Plaintiff made the decision to purchase this waterfront mansion without first 17  repairing the bulkhead. Plaintiff made the decision to enter into a Non-Realty Items Addendum that conveyed Defendants’ Mercury Boat and Trailer to Plaintiff in lieu of the bulkhead repair (See Exhibit 3, p. D-0020). Plaintiff testified the Mercury Boat was valued around $100,000.00 Plaintiff made the calculated decision to take it upon himself to do the bulkhead repairs after closing, accepting the burden of repair, in exchange for a $100,000.00 boat. Once the baton of ownership was passed to Plaintiff, the Property value increased by half a million dollars. Exhibit 10 shows the April 5, 2022 appraised value for the Property increased to $2,275,910. It wasn’t until after Plaintiff failed to conduct any repairs on the bulkhead for over a year that the condition of the Property worsened. Plaintiff testified he delayed the start of his due diligence in repairing the bulkhead for another five to six months after purchasing the Property. For half a year Plaintiff did nothing to remedy the bulkhead. Plaintiff testified it wasn’t until October or November of 2021 that he began his due diligence in looking for and talking to contractors about the repair of the bulkhead. Plaintiff testified for the next eight months, from October 2021 to June 2022, he was getting estimates and opinions on repairing the bulkhead without the commencement of any actual physical work to fix the bulkhead. Plaintiff testified he delayed the beginning of work because he wanted it done right. Although Plaintiff testified he received numerous estimates and invoices for repair, not a single estimate from a single contractor was ever admitted before the Jury.[1] Although 1 Plaintiff attempted to introduce a contractor invoice from Lake Conroe Marine Construction, LLC dated July 18, 2022 through Witness Kimberly Munsinger. The Court excluded said invoice and any expert opinions from Ms. Munsinger as her opinions were not properly filed nor disclosed [i[.e.,] the opinion of condition of property while Defendants owned property in 2019, that there were prior repairs made, and the opinion of diagnosis and scope to fix the problems in 2019], nor was all the evidence she relied upon produced [photographs she took of the Property during her inspection when Defendants owned the Property]. Munsinger’s testimony was limited to that of a lay witness and stated the condition of the Property when Defendants owned it: a pushed out section of the bulkhead and cracks in decking, similar to what Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s project manager witnessed 18  Plaintiff accepted the Burden of repair he admitted on cross examination that at the time he resold the Property he failed to make a single repair. For the entire twenty-seven months Plaintiff owned the Property[,] he watched as the damage intensified and did nothing to stop the bleeding. The various pictures of the Property that were admitted into evidence document the degrees of destruction that were exacerbated under Plaintiff’s control and ownership. Photos from June 2022, September 2022, December 2022, and even March 2024 show while Plaintiff failed to conduct any repairs after accepting the burden of repair, the Property condition worsened. On September 1, 2023, Plaintiff sold the Property to a subsequent buyer with a $750,000 credit after Plaintiff failed to make a single repair causing the Property condition to deteriorate and market value to plummet. Plaintiff testified he sold the Property to someone who could give the Property more attention. III. LEGAL STANDARD A directed verdict is proper when reasonable jurors cannot decide an issue required in a verdict. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 823 (Tex. 2005). It is the same test as that for judgments notwithstanding the verdict, summary judgments and no-evidence appellate reviews. Id. If reasonable minds could not differ in their conclusions, then the evidence is conclusive and a directed verdict is required. Id. at 816; Wood v. Pyramid Community Development Corporation, 14-11-00428-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 26, 2012, no pet.). The Court uses a legal sufficiency standard which must be sustained when any of the following is true: (1) There is a complete absence of evidence regarding a vital fact, (2) The rules of law or evidence preclude according weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact, prior to closing. She also testified that Defendants called her out to get an estimate for repair to the bulkhead and that she provided Defendants with an estimate for such repairs, an estimate she never produced with no memory of its particulars as she claims it vanished when the company changed software after the death of the prior owner. 19  (3) The evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a scintilla, or (4) The evidence conclusively establishes the opposite of the vital fact. Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 810; City of Houston v. Proler, 14-10- 00971-CV, *4-5 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 5-31-2012, no pet.). “The final test for legal sufficiency must always be whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to reach the verdict under review.” Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 827. Just as with motions for summary judgment, the Court examines the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movants and determines “whether there is any evidence of probative value to raise a material fact issue on the question presented.” Krobar Drilling v. Ormiston, 01-10-01016-CV, *4 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 5-3-2012) (citing Bostrom Seating, Inc. v. Crane Carrier Co., 140 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. 2004)). Deciding what a reasonable juror could find may be difficult in that “reasonable people sometimes disagree; thus, it is also inevitable that they will sometimes disagree about what reasonable people can disagree about.” Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 827. But even if the decision is difficult, if the Court concludes that no reasonable juror could make a required finding, then it becomes constitutionally imperative for the Court to grant a directed verdict. IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS Applying the law to the facts of the case the Court has no choice but to Grant the Directed Verdict as a matter of law as there is no evidence (or insufficient evidence) upon which any reasonable juror could find, or the evidence conclusively establishes the contrary for every essential element on every cause of action. Every remaining cause of action brought by Plaintiff against Defendants (DTPA, Fraud, and Negligent Misrepresentation) shares four similar essential elements: 1.) A false, misleading, deceptive representation (affirmative or by nondisclosure), 2.) Relied on by Plaintiff, 3.) Causing, 4.) Damages. 20  A. No Misrepresentation Plaintiff’s theory was Defendant failed to disclose and/or partially disclosed the condition of the Property. Plaintiff relied upon Contractor Munsinger, who previously inspected the bulkhead when Defendants owned the Property. Weighing the testimony of Munsinger in the light most favorable to Plaintiff demonstrates Munsinger saw a pushed out bulkhead with cracks and a missing tree and informed Defendants they needed to repair it. There was no evidence of the amount of the repair or a copy of the invoice she drafted back in 2019 she claims was provided to Defendants[. 2] Not only was this the precise condition of the Property (pushed out bulkhead, cracks, and missing tree) when inspected by Plaintiff and his project manager, it was the precise disclosure Plaintiff testified he received from Defendant Husband, seven weeks prior to closing that “the bulkhead needs repair.” There was no evidence admitted that showed Defendants were aware of any other condition other than the pushed out bulkhead, cracks, and a missing tree. There was no evidence that the interior of the home was creaking, cracking, or failing in any way. There was no evidence that the estimated $60,000 to $100,000 of repair from Defendants to Plaintiff was false or inaccurate. Plaintiffs failed to prov