Litigation & Records Services, LLC James Lee, Jr. James Lee Law Firm, PC Lee & Murphy Law Firm, GP Clayton A. Clark Clayton A. Clark, Esq., PC And Clark Love & Hutson, GP v. QTAT BPO Solutions, Inc. ( 2022 )

Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed April 28, 2022 In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-20-00558-CV LITIGATION & RECORDS SERVICES, LLC, Appellant V. QTAT BPO SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellee and QTAT BPO SOLUTIONS, INC., Cross-Appellant V. LITIGATION & RECORDS SERVICES, LLC; JAMES LEE, JR.; JAMES LEE LAW FIRM, PC; LEE & MURPHY LAW FIRM, GP; CLAYTON A. CLARK; CLAYTON A. CLARK, ESQ., PC; AND CLARK LOVE & HUTSON, GP, Cross-Appellees On Appeal from the 281st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015-50482 CONCURRING OPINION I agree with the majority’s resolution of LRS’s appeal. I also agree with the majority’s ultimate holding in QTAT’s appeal that the trial court did not err when it granted LRS’s JNOV because there was no evidence in the record that LRS and Lee had the intent not to perform at the time the letter agreement was signed. However, I write separately to point out that I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Lee’s statement in the July 2012 letter agreement, that it was his intent “to realize a profit as soon as possible,” is too indefinite to be actionable as fraud as a matter of law. Because I believe we should resolve QTAT’s appeal against it only because QTAT failed to introduce evidence of a present intent not to perform, I respectfully concur. /s/ Jerry Zimmerer Justice Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Wilson (Jewell, K., majority). 2