Gerdes v. Kennamer

Dissenting opinion by

J. YÁÑEZ.

I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that appellants waived their second and *536fourth issues, in which they challenge, respectively, the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings that: (1) breach of the relationship of trust and confidence between Kennamer and Roger.Gerdes (“Gerdes”) caused Ken-namer’s damages (issue two); and (2) Gerdes committed fraud against Kennamer (first part of issue four). I would hold that: (1) appellants preserved their legal and factual sufficiency challenges to these issues; (2) the evidence is…