Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-25-00079-CV __________________ LINCOLN LEE LANKFORD, Appellant V. CHARLOTTE GIBBS THOMAS AND MISTI TYLYN THOMAS, Appellees __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 457th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25-02-02166-CV __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Lincoln Lee Lankford (“Lankford” or “Appellant”) sued Charlotte Gibbs Thomas (“Charlotte”) and Misti Tylyn Thomas (“Misti”) (collectively “Appellees”) and three others, Eric Seth Thompson, Gregory Kevin Cline, and Mario Aguirre, 1 for claims related to an alleged assault on Lankford. Charlotte and her daughter, Misti, each filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, and the 1 Thompson, Cline, and Aguirre are not parties to this appeal. We refer to them only as necessary for the disposition of this appeal. 1 trial court granted the motions. See Tex. R. App. P. 166a(i).2 The trial court granted Charlotte and Misti’s motion for severance. Lankford timely appealed from the summary judgments. In two appellate issues, Lankford argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees because he provided more than a scintilla of competent summary judgment evidence on his claims against Appellees for conspiracy. We reverse and remand the summary judgment as to Lankford’s conspiracy claim against Misti, and we affirm the summary judgment as to Lankford’s conspiracy claim against Charlotte. Standard of Review and Applicable Law We review grants of summary judgment de novo. Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tex. 2015). We take as true all evidence favorable to the non-movant, indulge every reasonable inference in favor of the non-movant, and resolve any doubts in the non-movant’s favor. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). A no-evidence motion for summary judgment is essentially a pretrial motion for directed verdict, which we review for legal sufficiency. King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 750-51 (Tex. 2003). After there has been adequate time for discovery, a party may file a motion for summary judgment asserting there is no evidence of one or more essential 2 Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a was amended in March 2026, but we refer to the version that was in effect when the motions were filed. 2 elements of a claim or defense on which the other party bears the burden of proof. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). “The motion must state the elements as to which there is no evidence.” Id. “Once such a motion is filed, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to present evidence raising an issue of material fact as to the elements specified in the motion.” Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 582 (Tex. 2006). A trial court must grant a no-evidence motion for summary judgment unless the nonmovant produces more than a scintilla of evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to the challenged elements. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i); Mack Trucks, 206 S.W.3d at 582; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 92 S.W.3d 502, 506 (Tex. 2002). If the evidence rises to a level that would allow reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions, then more than a scintilla of probative evidence exists. King Ranch, 118 S.W.3d at 751. “‘The evidence does not create an issue of material fact if it is ‘so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion’ that the fact exists.’” First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214, 220 (Tex. 2017) (quoting Kia Motors Corp. v. Ruiz, 432 S.W.3d 865, 875 (Tex. 2014)). In evaluating whether more than a scintilla of evidence exists, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 601 (Tex. 2004). The Texas Supreme Court has defined the elements necessary to prove a civil conspiracy as “‘(1) two or more persons; (2) an object to be accomplished; (3) a 3 meeting of minds on the object or course of action; (4) one or more unlawful, overt acts; and (5) damages as the proximate result.’” Agar Corp., Inc. v. Electro Circuits Int’l, LLC, 580 S.W.3d 136, 141 (Tex. 2019) (quoting Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex. 1983)); Chon Tri v. J.T.T., 162 S.W.3d 552, 556 (Tex. 2005). Background Lankford’s First Amended Petition In Lankford’s First Amended Petition, the live petition at the time the trial court granted Charlotte’s and Misti’s no-evidence motions for summary judgment (the “Petition”), Lankford alleged a cause of action against Charlotte and Misti for civil conspiracy. 3 In the Petition he alleges that on May 13, 2020, Thompson, Cline, and Aguirre assaulted Lankford in the shop which is located on property Lankford shared with Misti, and that Lankford suffered a brain injury because of the beating. As to Charlotte’s and Misti’s alleged involvement, the Petition states the following, in relevant part: [] On May 13, 2020, Lincoln Lee Lankford was in the shop on [the] property he shared with Misti Tylyn Thomas. Lincoln Lee 3 Lankford argues in his response to Charlotte’s and Misti’s motions for summary judgment that “[a]part from the use of th[e] phrase [“aiding and abetting”] in the fact section of the Petition, there is no cause of action for aiding and abetting alleged against any defendant.” Because on appeal Lankford only challenges the trial court’s grant of the no-evidence summary judgment in favor of Charlotte and Misti as to Lankford’s conspiracy claims against Charlotte and Misti, we need not discuss any other claim. 4 Lankford heard a knock on the door, and when he opened the door, he was met by Eric Seth Thompson, Gregory Kevin Cline, and Mario Aguirre, who proceeded to beat him so severely and viciously, it is a miracle he is still alive. . . . [] . . . [Lankford’s beating] was a hit arranged by Misti Tylyn Thomas to have Lincoln Lee Lankford grievously harmed, likely killed. Misti Tylyn Thomas arranged the hit with her former boyfriend, Eric Seth Thompson, and his running buddies, Gregory Kevin Cline and Mario Aguirre. Charlotte Gibbs Thomas aided and abetted her daughter, Misti Tylyn Thomas, in planning to have the hit carried out, and in cleaning the scene where the hit occurred. In a parenting low point, mom, Charlotte Gibbs Thomas, inquired not of the welfare of Lincoln Lee Lankford, but rather how much her daughter, Misti Tylyn Thomas, paid Eric Seth Thompson to carry out the hit. .... [] . . . Misti Tylyn Thomas aided and abetted Eric Seth Thompson, Gregory Kevin Cline, and Mario Aguirre in battering and assaulting Lincoln Lee Lankford. Charlotte Gibbs Thomas aided and abetted Misti Tylyn Thomas in having Lincoln Lee Lankford battered and assaulted. Charlotte Gibbs Thomas’, Misti Tylyn Thomas’, Eric Seth Thompson’s, Gregory Kevin Cline’s, and Mario Aguirrre’s behavior proximately caused Lincoln Lee Lankford’s injuries. Lincoln Lee Lankford seeks recovery from each of Charlotte Gibbs Thomas, Misti Tylyn Thomas, Eric Seth Thompson, Gregory Kevin Cline, and Mario Aguirre, jointly and severally, for the actual damages caused by their conduct, including, but not limited to, past and future physical pain and suffering, past and future mental anguish, past and future physical impairment, past and future medical expenses, past and future lost wages, and past and future disfigurement. Lincoln Lee Lankford seeks an award of exemplary damages from each of Charlotte Gibbs Thomas, Misti Tylyn Thomas, Eric Seth Thompson, Gregory Kevin Cline, and Mario Aguirre because of their wilful and malicious desire to inflict this injury upon him in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000.00 per defendant. VICARIOUS LIABILITY: [] Misti Tylyn Thomas had a meeting of the minds with Eric Seth Thompson, Gregory Kevin Cline, and Mario Aguirre to have Lincoln Lee Lankford harmed, Lincoln Lee Lankford was harmed by the unlawful overt actions of . . . Eric Seth Thompson, Gregory Kevin Cline, and Mario Aguirre, and those unlawful overt actions are the 5 proximate cause of Lincoln Lee Lankford’s injuries. Accordingly, Misti Tylyn Thomas is jointly and severally liable, along with Charlotte Gibbs Thomas, Eric Seth Thompson, Gregory Kevin Cline, and Mario Aguirre, for Lincoln Lee Lankford’s injuries. Lincoln Lee Lankford further seeks an award of exemplary damages from Misti Tylyn Thomas because of her wilful and malicious desire to inflict this injury upon him in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000.00. [] [] Charlotte Gibbs Thomas had a meeting of the minds with Misti Tylyn Thomas to arrange for Eric Seth Thompson to harm Lincoln Lee Lankford, Lincoln Lee Lankford was harmed by the unlawful overt actions of . . . Eric Seth Thompson, Gregory Kevin Cline, and Mario Aguirre, and those unlawful overt actions are the proximate cause of Lincoln Lee Lankford’s injuries. Accordingly, Charlotte Gibbs Thomas is jointly and severally liable, along with Misti Tylyn Thomas, Eric Seth Thompson, Gregory Kevin Cline, and Mario Aguirre, for Lincoln Lee Lankford’s injuries. Lincoln Lee Lankford further seeks an award of exemplary damages from Charlotte Gibbs Thomas because of her wilful and malicious desire to inflict this injury upon him in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000.00. [] Charlotte’s and Misti’s No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment Charlotte filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, arguing that Lankford does not allege that Charlotte was a participant in the assault or even was present when the assault occurred, and that there is no evidence to support each element of Lankford’s conspiracy claim. Specifically, Charlotte contends that there is no evidence of a combination of two or more persons that included Charlotte, no evidence that the combination of persons including Charlotte reached a meeting of the minds to arrange for Thompson to harm Lankford, no evidence that Charlotte intended to arrange for Thompson to harm Lankford that proximately resulted in damages to Lankford, and no evidence that Charlotte was aware of the intended 6 arrangement for Thompson to harm Lankford at the outset of any combination or agreement that Charlotte willfully or maliciously desired to inflict harm or injury on Lankford. Charlotte also asserts that there is no civil cause of action for “aiding and abetting” the commission of a tort as a matter of law in Texas. Misti also filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, with the same arguments as Charlotte. Lankford’s Response In his response to Charlotte’s and Misti’s no-evidence motions for summary judgment (the “Response”), Lankford argues that he asserted claims against Charlotte and Misti only for conspiracy and although he used the phrase “aiding and abetting[,]” he states, “there is no cause of action for aiding and abetting alleged against any defendant.” Specifically as to his conspiracy claims against Misti and Charlotte, Lankford argues that he raised more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to each element. Lankford contends that it is undisputed that Cline was convicted of assaulting Lankford on May 13, 2020, and that the probable cause affidavits for Misti’s arrest (attached as Exhibit A to the Response) and Aguirre’s arrest (attached as Exhibit B to the Response), demonstrate that Charlotte and Misti were part of the conspiracy for purposes of the “two or more persons” element of civil conspiracy. As for the “object to be accomplished” element of the civil conspiracy, Lankford contends that “[t]he object to be accomplished was 7 the eviction of Lincoln Lankford from the residence he shared with Defendant Misti Thomas[,]” as evidenced by the text messages between Misti and Charlotte as set forth in Exhibit A. Lankford argues that Exhibit A also supports the “meeting of minds on the object or course of action” because the probable cause affidavit describes text messages showing that Misti was “aware of the harm to be caused to Mr. Lankford at the inception of the combination[,]” and that Charlotte “was also fully aware of the harm that would result to Mr. Lankford[.]” Lankford asserts that Exhibit A and the Judgment of Conviction for Cline (Exhibit C) supports the “one or more unlawful, overt acts” element because they show that Lankford was assaulted on May 13, 2020 by Cline, Thompson, and Aguirre. As for the element of “damages as a proximate result[,]” Lankford argues that Exhibit B shows that the assault resulted in a serious bodily injury to him. Charlotte and Misti’s Reply Charlotte and Misti filed a Reply to Lankford’s Response, arguing that there is no evidence that they intended to cause Lankford harm or agreed to accomplish something unlawful or to accomplish something lawful by unlawful means. In their Reply, they argue that Lankford has now changed the basis of his claim to the “object or course of action” to be accomplished from harming Lankford to now evicting Lankford, but the object of an eviction does not appear anywhere in his Petition. Charlotte and Misti contend that, even if he had pled that theory, Lankford has 8 produced no evidence (1) establishing he had a legal right to occupy the property in question, (2) that he owned or leased the property where the assault purportedly occurred, or (3) that Charlotte and Misti had a meeting of the minds between themselves or with any of the defendants that any eviction be accomplished by physically harming Lankford. As for the “meeting of the minds” element to the alleged civil conspiracy, Charlotte and Misti allege that the text messages Lankford calls “strong circumstantial evidence” still fail to establish that Misti or Charlotte had a specific intent to evict him by unlawful means or to assault or harm Lankford, the text messages fail to show Misti or Charlotte had a meeting of the minds to physically harm or evict Lankford at the inception of any combination, and, contrary to statements in Lankford’s Response, there is no text message in which Charlotte asked how much Misti “would have to pay for the assault.” Orders Granting Summary Judgment, Severance, and Lankford’s Appeal The trial court signed an Order Granting Defendant Misti Tylyn Thomas’ Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing Lankford’s claims against her for conspiracy with prejudice. The trial court signed an Order Granting Defendant Charlotte Gibbs Thomas’ Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing Lankford’s claims against her for conspiracy with prejudice. 9 The trial court granted Charlotte and Misti’s Motion for Severance, and the two summary judgment orders were severed into Cause No. 25-02-02166. Lankford timely appealed the trial court’s summary judgments in favor of Charlotte and Misti. Analysis In his first issue, Lankford argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Misti as to his conspiracy claim. In his second issue, Lankford argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Charlotte as to his conspiracy claim. Lankford appeals the summary judgments in favor of Charlotte and Misti only as to his conspiracy claim against each of them,4 and he makes the same arguments on appeal as to his conspiracy claim against each of them as he made in his Response to their no-evidence motions for summary judgment. Before addressing whether Lankford produced more than a scintilla of evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, we first note that in the section of Lankford’s Response titled “Object to be Accomplished[,]” he alleges that the object to be accomplished in this alleged conspiracy was Lankford’s eviction. See generally Agar Corp., Inc., 580 S.W.3d at 141 (elements of conspiracy). However, that theory 4 When a trial court grants summary judgment to a defendant and the plaintiff appeals, the plaintiff abandons any claims that he does not brief on appeal, and we will review the summary judgment only with respect to those claims that he asserts in his brief. See, e.g., Pat Baker Co. v. Wilson, 971 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Tex. 1998); Vawter v. Garvey, 786 S.W.2d 263, 264 (Tex. 1990); Allright, Inc. v. Pearson, 735 S.W.2d 240, 240 (Tex. 1987). 10 was not alleged in his Petition. “[I]f the nonmovant raises a new theory for the first time in its response to a motion for summary judgment, and [the nonmovant] does not amend his pleadings to include this additional theory of recovery, the new theory of recovery is not considered at issue before the trial court when the trial court rules on the motion for summary judgment.” Luna v. Gunter Honey, Inc., No. 09-05-207- CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 10582, at **3-4 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Dec. 22, 2005, pet. denied) (mem. op). This is because a “‘defendant need not . . . show that the plaintiff cannot succeed on any theory conceivable in order to obtain summary judgment; he is only ‘required to meet the plaintiff’s case as pleaded.’” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Doe, 903 S.W.2d 347, 355 (Tex. 1995) (quoting Cook v. Brundidge, Fountain, Elliott & Churchill, 533 S.W.2d 751, 759 (Tex. 1976)). That being said, we construe Lankford’s Petition and his summary judgment response to allege that Charlotte and Misti were aware of the harm that would result to Lankford and that the object to be accomplished in the conspiracy was an assault on Lankford. As evidence of his conspiracy claim against Charlotte and Misti, Lankford attached Exhibits A, B, and C to his summary judgment response. Exhibit A is a document entitled “Complaint and Affidavit for Warrant of Arrest” for Misti Thomas, wherein Officer C. Sullivent, states the following, in pertinent part: BEFORE ME, the undersigned Authority, on this day personally appeared C. Sullivent, who after being by me duly sworn, on oath 11 deposes and says: That he has good reason to believe and does believe and charged that . . . on or about May 13, 2020, . . . Misti Tylyn Thomas, the Defendant, did then and there intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause serious bodily injury to Lincoln Lankford, by hitting Lincoln Lankford with the defendant’s hand or an object, ... Affiant, C. Sullivent, is a certified Texas Peace Officer employed by Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office. Based on his/her own investigation and review of Offense Report #20A155064, Affiant can state the following: Affiant was assigned to investigate the Aggravated Assault that just occurred at 16240 FM 2854, Montgomery TX 77316. . . . Affiant interviewed[] Lincoln Lee Lankford (victim) and learned that he was in his residence he shares with his roommate, Misti Tylyn Thomas, inside the tool shed portion of an external storage building when he heard a banging at the door to the tool shed. The victim answered the door to find a person he knows by sight and name as Eric Thompson, the former live in boyfriend of his roommate Misti Thomas. The victim advised that as soon as he opened the door, Eric Thomas began punching him in the face with Eric’s closed fist. The victim stated that when he opened the door to find Eric standing there, he could tell that there were one or two other persons standing behind Eric. The victim stated that he was initially unsure who the other persons were but was sure that the person who began punching him immediately after he opened the door was Eric Thompson. The victim stated that at some point in the assault, the defendant or some other person present used a long stick or bat like object to strike him multiple times, causing further injury. .... Affiant spoke with medical staff at Memorial Hermann Hospital Intensive Care Unit and learned that the victim suffered multiple facial fractures that required a 6 hour reconstructive surgery in addition to [other various injuries]. Affiant believes that these injuries are serious bodily injuries. 12 The victim advised Affiant that he only knows Eric Thompson through Misti Thomas and that if Eric assaulted him, it had to be because Misti told him to do so. The victim stated that Misti Thomas was at the residence with him just prior to the assault. The victim said that Misti Thomas has bragged to him in the past about prior assaults she asked the Defendant to do for her. Affiant spoke with the victim’s mother . . . and learned from her that the victim arrived at her home around 3pm on 05/13/20 alone in his Chevy Suburban. [Lankford’s mother] stated that [Lankford] was severely beaten upon his arrival and one of eyes was already swollen shut. [Lankford’s mother] told Affiant that she spoke to Misti Thomas the day before the assault, on 05/12/20, and Misti called [Lankford’s mother] to ask for her help in getting the victim to move out of her house. [Lankford’s mother] stated that Misti complained to her that the victim was supposed to live at her house rent free in exchange for helping her maintain the property and he refused to mow the grass when she asked him to. . . . [Lankford’s mother] stated that Misti told her that Eric will do anything for her if she asks him. Affiant met with Misti Thomas on 05/14/20 who stated she was not involved in this incident and does not know why the victim was assaulted. Misti stated that she left her home on the day of the assault to go to a local bar, The Corner Pub in Conroe TX, . . . to visit with the owner, Lee Anne Pool. Misti stated that she spent the evening with her boyfriend in Conroe after leaving the bar. Affiant spoke with Lee Ann Pool who confirmed that Misti came to the bar on 05/13/20 and remained there for several hours. Lee Ann stated that Misti was complaining to her about wanting the victim to leave the residence but not being able to get him to move out. Lee Ann also saw Eric Thompson and his two friends, Greg Cline and Mario Aguirre, join Misti at the bar sometime in the 1 pm hour. Lee Ann saw the three males leave the bar together and Misti remain there. Lee Anne saw the three males come back to the bar some time later and meet back up with Misti before all parties left the bar around 3 pm as the bar was closing. Lee Anne knows Eric, Greg, and Mario as customers of the business. 13 Affiant knows from experience that the scene of the assault is approximately 15-20 minutes to the west of the bar. Affiant obtained a search warrant for Eric Thompson[’]s call detail records [that] revealed that Eric’s phone was in the area of the bar at the time Lee Anne saw Eric at the bar with the two other suspects and also in the area of the assault scene during the time of the assault in the 2pm hour. Eric’s phone was later found to be back in the Conroe area after the assault occurred. Eric’s phone is then shown to be on the road to Austin, Texas, where Affiant learned Eric’s sister, Tonya Thompson resides[.] Affiant also found in the call detail records from Eric Thompson’s phone that on the day of the assault, 05/13/20, Eric Thompson received a call from [Misti’s phone number] at 1:08 pm and spoke for 9 minutes and 32 seconds. Eric Thompson’s phone returned the call to [Misti’s phone number] at 5:02 pm and connected for 28 seconds. Eric’s phone called this number again at 5:10 pm and spoke for 12 minutes and 3 seconds. Eric received a call from [Misti’s phone] number again at 5:42 pm and spoke for 1 minute 36 seconds. Eric called [Misti’s phone] number back at 5:49 pm and spoke for 1 minute 18 seconds. Eric received a call from [Misti’s phone] number at 6pm and spoke for 3 minutes 58 seconds. Eric was connected to this number 4 more times over the course of the evening on 05/13/20 and 10 times the next day, 05/14/20. . . . Affiant obtained a search warrant for Misti’s cellphone seized on 05/14//20 and upon review of the forensic download of its contents, Affiant found a text thread between Misti and [a certain phone number] which was saved in Misti’s phone book as “Tonya new.” In this thread, Affiant noted that Misti texted Tonya on the day of the assault, 05/13/20, at 2:13 pm with “I called your brother. Think the team of 3 are there now. This will break bad.” Tonya’s reply was received at 4:01 pm as “Did you tell him to leave and he wouldn’t?” to which Misti replied at 4:02 pm with “Yep[] & now I am cleaning up blood spatter. Super.” Tonya replied to that message at 4:03 pm with “Is he gone?” and Misti replied at 4:04 pm with “Yep. They told me to stay gone & he & Greg and Little came over.” A query of Tonya’s number in the ZETX law enforcement portal revealed that it was registered on the Sprint network to Tonya Thompson, the sister of Eric Thompson who lives in the Austin, Texas area. 14 Affiant found a text thread between Misti and [a certain phone number], saved in Misti’s phone book as “Mom.” In this thread, Mom texts Misti on 05/12/20 at 2:57 pm with “if you are still at our house, why don’t you just stay there till we get home… We can just calmly talk through the Lincoln thing.” Misti replied on the day of the assault, 05/13/20, at 1:21 am with “He had a camera in the bard [sic] I just found. No More.” Mom texted on 05/13/20 at 11:15 am with “The stipulation of no drugs was broken, that is all that matters and enough said!” Misti replied at 1:00 pm with “We had a flip out over the camera the moment he awoke & he went out there in his bath robe. I’m currently hanging out with Lee Anne.” Misti texted at 1:04 pm, “He was yelling at me and I left. I’m about to call E. Joel called too & said he would help but E & Greg would be better help with this.” Mom texted at 2:06 pm, “He broke the agreement by doing drugs. Maybe police?” and at 2:06 pm, “Joel really not be involved. But how much will you have to pay E?” Misti replied “Nothing. He has a team of 3.” Misti replied at 2:18 pm, “Yes. They are likely there now.” The text thread continues after this exchange where Mom is suggesting to Misti how to clean up something involving putting stuff in garbage bags and cleaning towels with bleach in addition to suggesting a local attorney go to the scene with Misti. On 05/26/20, [Lankford] was shown a photo lineup . . . [and he] identified Eric Thompson as one of the persons who assaulted [Lankford] in this case. Victim was also shown a photo lineup [and Lankford] positively identified Greg Cline as one of the persons who assaulted [Lankford] in this case. [Lankford] has lived with Misti Thomas for the past several months[.] Wherefore I believe that probable cause exists to believe that Misti Tylyn Thomas has committed the felony offense of Aggravated Assault. Accordingly, I ask for issuance of a warrant authorizing the arrest and seizure of Misti Tylyn Thomas[.] Exhibit B is the Complaint and Affidavit for Warrant of Arrest for Mario Alberto Aguirre, wherein Affiant C. Sullivent states the following, in relevant part: Affiant further states that [Lankford] also told him that he recalls the Defendant standing behind codefendants Cline and Thompson at the door to the tool shed when the assault began[.] [Lankford] told affiant 15 that he remembered . . . the Defendant hosing him down with a water hose while he was on the ground bleeding from the assault, and that Thompson and Cline picked him up and put him in his car while this Defendant hosed him down, while holding some type of cleaning agent in the Defendant’s hand. Affiant believes that this new information from [Lankford] not only ties the Defendant to this incident, but includes him fully in the conduct of Co-Defendants in the Aggravated Assault of [Lankford] that has caused Serious Bodily Injury and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. . . . Affiant . . . stat[es] that in his 26 years of being a peace officer . . . he has never seen or heard of a beating this extensive[.] Exhibit C is a Judgment of Conviction by Jury of Gregory Kevin Cline for an aggravated assault that occurred on May 13, 2020. We note that neither Misti nor Charlotte made any objections in the trial court to Exhibits A, B, or C. After examining the entire record in the light most favorable to Lankford, as the nonmovant, and indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts against the motion, and in light of the unobjected-to exhibits attached to the response to the motion for summary judgment, we conclude Lankford produced more than a scintilla of evidence that Misti had a meeting of the minds with at least one other, of an objective to harm Lankford by having others commit an assault, and that Lankford was then assaulted and thereby sustained injuries. See Parker, 514 S.W.3d at 222 (citing Massey, 652 S.W.2d at 934); see also Valence Operating Co., 164 S.W.3d at 661 (standard of review). We conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the conspiracy claim against Misti because Lankford produced more than a scintilla of evidence demonstrating the necessary elements of a conspiracy 16 between Misti and at least one of the alleged assailants (Cline, Thompson, and Aguirre). Issue one is sustained. We reverse the trial court’s summary judgment as to Lankford’s conspiracy claim against Misti, and we remand that part of the case to the trial court. With respect to the allegations against Charlotte, we reach a different result. There is a complete absence of any evidence that Charlotte knew or intended that Lankford’s assailants would use violence, assault, or harm Lankford, and without some evidence thereof, Charlotte could not have, as a matter of law, intended to or conspired to commit or facilitate the assault. Lankford also failed to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to the “meeting of the minds” element of his conspiracy claim as to Charlotte. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted Charlotte’s motion for summary judgment on Lankford’s conspiracy claim. We overrule issue two, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment in favor of Charlotte. To summarize, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as to Lankford’s claims against Charlotte Gibbs Thomas; we affirm the trial court’s judgment as to Lankford’s theft claim against Misti Tylyn Thomas and affirm the trial court’s judgment on any other claims that Lankford alleged in his pleadings but did not challenge in this appeal; and, we reverse the trial court’s no-evidence summary judgment as to Lankford’s conspiracy claim against Misti Tylyn Thomas and remand that part of the case with instructions to the trial court to conduct further 17 proceedings limited to Lankford’s conspiracy claim against Misti Tylyn Thomas consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on July 9, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 31, 2026 Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ. 18