CROSSOVER: No-Evidence MSJ Can Knock Out Newly-Amended Claims When the Motion Attacks a Common Element (Reliance)

T & T Construction and Development v. Delossantos, 14-24-00678-CV, March 12, 2026.

On appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas.

Synopsis

A no-evidence motion for summary judgment can reach later-added causes of action if the motion attacks an essential element common to both the old and new claims. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that a no-evidence challenge to “reliance” knocked out newly pleaded fraud-by-nondisclosure and negligent-misrepresentation claims because they arose from the same factual nucleus and required the same reliance proof.

Relevance to Family Law

Family-law pleadings frequently evolve midstream—especially in property-division fights involving alleged concealment, reimbursement disputes, and “fraud on the community” theories. This opinion is a reminder that you cannot draft around a pending no-evidence MSJ by relabeling claims (e.g., shifting from actual fraud to nondisclosure or negligent misrepresentation) when the opponent’s motion already targets a shared dispositive element like reliance. Conversely, if you’re moving for no-evidence summary judgment in a divorce case, a well-aimed attack on a common element can preempt later “theory shopping” through amended pleadings.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

T & T Construction and Development (T&T) sued multiple defendants arising out of its purchase of real property, alleging misrepresentations about the availability of public sewer and water. In each iteration of its pleadings, T&T alleged that it relied on the statements (or omissions) regarding sewer and water service.

The defendants filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment attacking elements of fraud, including an express contention that there was no evidence of reliance. T&T then amended—more than once—cycling through different theories: removing and adding claims (fraud, statutory fraud, promissory estoppel), and ultimately pleading fraud by nondisclosure and negligent misrepresentation. T&T responded to the amended no-evidence motion not by directing the trial court to evidence raising a fact issue on reliance, but by arguing the motion didn’t expressly address the newest claims. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed all claims with prejudice.

Issues Decided

• Whether a no-evidence MSJ challenging a specific element of the plaintiff’s pleaded claims (here, reliance) can support summary judgment on later-added causes of action that share that same essential element and arise from the same underlying facts.
• Whether granting summary judgment on the newly pleaded claims violated the rule that courts cannot grant summary judgment on grounds not presented in the motion.

Rules Applied

• Trial courts generally may not grant summary judgment on grounds not expressly presented. Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306, 310 (Tex. 2009).
• A sufficiently broad summary-judgment motion can be deemed to cover later-pleaded causes of action when an amended petition repackages the same essential elements.
• Lampasas v. Spring Ctr., Inc., 988 S.W.2d 428, 436–37 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.)
• Wortham v. Dow Chem. Co., 179 S.W.3d 189, 202 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.)
• Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. Fuqua, 29 S.W.3d 140, 147 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied)
• Reliance is a common element across multiple tort/equitable theories, including fraud, promissory estoppel, fraud by nondisclosure, and negligent misrepresentation. Simulis, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 439 S.W.3d 571, 576–77 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.).
• A no-evidence motion challenging reliance may be broad enough to capture multiple reliance-dependent theories. See Envirodigm, Inc. v. Tex. Instruments Inc., No. 05-22-00359-CV, 2023 WL 4101357, at *7 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 21, 2023, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

Application

The Fourteenth Court framed the dispute as a pleading-and-proof problem, not a labeling problem. The defendants’ amended no-evidence motion challenged reliance as to T&T’s then-live claims (fraud and promissory estoppel). When T&T later amended again—swapping in fraud by nondisclosure and negligent misrepresentation—it did not change the operative facts (the sewer/water representations) and did not escape the requirement to prove reliance.

Because reliance remained an indispensable element of the new claims, and because the new claims were grounded in the same factual allegations as the earlier ones, the court treated the no-evidence attack on reliance as “sufficiently broad” to reach the later-pleaded theories. The court relied on prior authority refusing to let a plaintiff sidestep a no-evidence MSJ by repackaging claims after the motion is filed. T&T’s strategic mistake was responding with a scope objection rather than controverting the no-evidence point with record citations raising a fact issue on reliance.

Holding

The court held the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment on later-pleaded claims when the no-evidence motion attacked a common essential element (reliance) shared by the earlier and later claims, and when all claims arose from the same factual core.

The court affirmed dismissal with prejudice because the defendants’ no-evidence challenge to reliance was broad enough to encompass T&T’s subsequently pleaded fraud-by-nondisclosure and negligent-misrepresentation claims, and T&T failed to identify evidence creating a genuine fact issue on that element.

Practical Application

In family-law litigation, reliance shows up in many familiar disguises: misrepresentations about separate property, nondisclosure of accounts, promises to refinance, inducements to sign mediated settlement agreements (MSAs), and representations driving agreed temporary orders. This case strengthens a disciplined summary-judgment strategy: if you target a common element that cuts across multiple theories (reliance, causation, damages, fiduciary duty breach, or tracing), you may be able to defeat not just today’s petition—but tomorrow’s amended one too.

Practically, this opinion matters most in these family-law scenarios:

• Property division / fraud on the community: When the petitioner pivots between “actual fraud,” “constructive fraud,” “breach of fiduciary duty,” “nondisclosure,” and “negligent misrepresentation,” a no-evidence attack aimed at a shared element (e.g., causation of loss to the community estate, reliance on the omission/statement, or damages) can be dispositive across theories.
• Enforcement and modification cases with settlement inducement allegations: Parties often try to reframe the same grievance as duress, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or promissory estoppel; a targeted no-evidence motion may preempt a moving target.
• Third-party practice in divorces (business entities, relatives, paramours): When joinder creates parallel tort theories, plaintiffs may amend rapidly. A common-element motion can keep the battlefield stable and the burden on the pleader.

Checklists

Drafting a No-Evidence MSJ That Survives Amended Pleadings

• Identify common elements shared across likely alternative theories (e.g., reliance, causation, damages, duty, knowledge, tracing).
• Challenge those elements expressly and unambiguously in the motion (avoid overly claim-specific framing).
• Tie the element to the same factual nucleus alleged (so later amendments look like re-labeling, not a new transaction).
• Use claim-agnostic phrasing where appropriate (e.g., “no evidence Petitioner justifiably relied on any statement or omission”).
• Request a take-nothing judgment on “all claims to the extent they require proof of [element].”

Responding When the Other Side Files a No-Evidence MSJ and You Amend

• Assume the court will test whether your “new” claim shares the attacked element.
• If the element is common (like reliance), respond with pinpoint record citations creating a fact issue—don’t rely on a scope objection alone.
• If you truly have a distinct claim, plead and support distinct operative facts (different transaction, different statement/omission, different timeframe, different actor).
• Consider moving for leave to supplement summary-judgment evidence and requesting a continuance if discovery is needed (and build the record).

Family-Law Specific: Preserving “Fraud/Non-Disclosure” Claims Against Summary Judgment

• Plead reliance with specificity: who relied, when, on what, and how it changed the litigation position (agreement, waiver, transfer, debt assumption).
• Develop evidence of reliance early:
• testimony about decision-making
• drafts/emails/texts
• mediation communications (as allowed)
• financial statements/inventories and sworn disclosures
• Separate reliance from mere “non-disclosure”: show the omission caused a concrete litigation or property consequence.
• If relying on fiduciary-duty concepts, still prove the causal link between the breach and an identifiable economic injury.

Citation

T & T Construction and Development v. Delossantos, No. 14-24-00678-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 12, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

Family Law Crossover

In divorce and custody litigation, this ruling is “weaponizable” in a very specific way: it lets a respondent convert a moving-target petition into a fixed evidentiary contest by attacking a common element that the petitioner cannot plausibly avoid through re-pleading. For example, if a spouse sues for fraud on the community, then amends to constructive fraud/breach of fiduciary duty/nondisclosure based on the same alleged hidden asset, a no-evidence motion targeting a shared element—such as reliance (agreement induced), causation (loss to the community estate), or damages (quantified economic injury)—can potentially sweep in the later theories without requiring a new motion each time the pleadings change.

For the petitioner, the lesson is equally strategic: once a no-evidence MSJ tees up a shared element, the response must be built around proof, not taxonomy. If you amend to “new” claims that still require the same reliance showing (e.g., “I would not have signed the MSA / agreed to the property split / accepted temporary orders but for the misstatement/omission”), the amendment won’t save you—only competent summary-judgment evidence will.

~~e4039e0f-45a9-40e6-8a8a-5cc7a79cb0f6~~