Avary v. Bank of America, N.A.
2002 WL 442064, 72 S.W.3d 779 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory confidentiality of communications made during mediation does not bar discovery of those communications when they are necessary to prove a new and independent tort, such as breach of a fiduciary duty, that is alleged to have occurred during the course of the mediation proceedings.
Facts:
- Joseph Bourgeois was killed in a tractor rollover accident, and Bank of America, N.A. (Bank) was appointed as the independent executor of his estate.
- Bourgeois was survived by his wife, parents, and three sons; Rhonda Avary was the guardian for two of the sons from a previous marriage.
- The estate and family members sued the tractor manufacturer in a wrongful death and survival lawsuit, which the parties attempted to resolve through a court-ordered mediation.
- During the mediation, Avary and her counsel were in a separate room from the Bank's representative, Eileen Kirchner, and the other plaintiffs.
- Avary alleges that the manufacturer made a settlement offer of $450,000 directly to the Bourgeois estate.
- Kirchner, the Bank's representative, allegedly left the mediation before this specific offer was made.
- Avary claims the Bank rejected the $450,000 offer and instead accepted a lump-sum settlement from which the estate received only $75,000.
- This $75,000 allocation was insufficient to cover the estate's known tax liability of over $185,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Rhonda Avary sued Bank of America, N.A. in a Texas district court (trial court) for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraud, and conspiracy.
- During discovery, the Bank objected to requests for information about the prior mediation, citing statutory confidentiality.
- The trial judge issued orders that largely restricted Avary's discovery into the mediation but did permit the deposition of the Bank's representative after an in camera review.
- The Bank filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no admissible evidence to support Avary's claims.
- The trial judge granted the Bank's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Avary's case.
- Avary, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District, with the Bank as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the confidentiality provision of the Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 154.073, bar discovery of communications made during a mediation when those communications are necessary to prove a new and independent tort allegedly committed by a participant during the mediation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Whittington
No. The confidentiality provision of the Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution statute does not bar discovery of mediation communications when they are sought to prove a new and independent tort committed during the mediation. The court reasoned that the Bank, as an executor, owed a fiduciary duty of full disclosure to the estate's beneficiaries. This pre-existing legal duty constitutes a 'legal requirement for disclosure' under § 154.073(e) of the statute, creating a conflict with the general rule of mediation confidentiality. When such a conflict arises, a trial court must conduct an in camera review to determine whether the 'facts, circumstances, and context' of the communications warrant disclosure. Here, the alleged tort (breach of fiduciary duty) occurred within the mediation itself, and evidence of it is inseparable from the mediation communications. To apply the confidentiality privilege would be to shield a fiduciary from accountability for misconduct. While the trial court correctly identified the conflict and the need for disclosure, it abused its discretion by unreasonably restricting discovery to only one witness who was not present for the key events and issuing a blanket prohibition on further discovery without conducting additional in camera reviews for other witnesses.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant exception to the broad confidentiality of mediation proceedings in Texas. It clarifies that the privilege is not absolute and cannot be used as a shield to protect a party from liability for tortious conduct, like breach of fiduciary duty, that occurs within the mediation itself. The decision provides a procedural framework for trial courts, requiring an in camera review under § 154.073(e) to balance the policy of encouraging settlement through confidentiality against the right of a party to prove a claim of wrongdoing. This precedent ensures that fiduciaries and other parties remain accountable for their actions during mediation and prevents the process from becoming a venue for committing torts with impunity.
