Texas Business Court Decision – June 9, 2026
No. 25-BC01A-0061 Ryan Lunderby v. Dominium Development & Acquisition, LLC (Division 1, Judge Bouressa) 2026 Tex. Bus. 38 25-bc01a-0061-lunderby-v-dominium-dev-and-acquisition-2026-tex-bus-38.pdf
Contracts.
Background. Lunderby and Dominium were parties to a 2025 “Amended and Restated Employment Agreement” governed by Texas law. The agreement required Lunderby to “relocate to Dallas” to serve as “cultural head of the Central Region,” a provision carried forward from the parties’ 2021 employment agreement. The 2025 Agreement’s accompanying exhibits offered relocation incentives, including a bonus towards a home purchase in the Dallas areas, with vesting provisions anticipating Lunderby’s continued presence in Texas. It was undisputed that Lunderby purchased a home in Southlake, Texas in 2021 and lived there with his family. However, in May 2025, he and his spouse closed on a home in Minnesota; in June they sold the Southlake home and Lunderby’s spouse and minor son moved to Minnesota. Lunderby lives in a leased apartment in Irving.
Issue Presented. The matter comes before the court on cross-motions presenting the same core question: the proper interpretation of Lunderby’s contractual obligation to “relocate to Dallas.” Lunderby moved for traditional partial summary judgment, arguing his 2021 move to Southlake fully satisfied his relocation obligation and that neither his spouse nor son had any duty to reside in Texas. Dominium filed a Rule 166(g) motion to construe “relocate to Dallas” as requiring a permanent move, and opposed Lunderby’s effort to exclude evidence of his family’s Minnesota residence from discovery.
Discussion.
!. “Relocate to Dallas” required more than merely reporting to work there – the employment contract specifically bargained for relocation, not simple work attendance, and the relocation incentives would be rendered meaningless if the obligation did not persist for the contract’s duration. The court rejects any reading of the agreement permitting Lunderby to satisfy his contractual obligation with a brief, token move.
2. However, the court concludes that the precise contours of “relocate” presented a genuine ambiguity, as Texas law provides no objective criteria defining when relocation has or has not occurred. The court noted case law on both sides of the question, but found a 1998 case – Jacobs v. Bancplus Mortg. Corp., 1998 WL 197665 (Tex. App. – Amarillo, April 22, 1998) – analogous and believed it “confirms that the appropriate time and place for this issue to be resolved is at the parties’ scheduled jury trial.” Both motions were denied; the court will take up any issues concerning the home of Lunderby’s spouse and child as they arise during discovery and trial.