Brad and Randi Aery, and the House Intervenors Lloyd House, Robert Eugene House, Magdalen House, Judith Ann House, Wayne House, Jimmy R. House, Edna Pawelek Ulbrich, Peter Pawelek, Jesse Pawelek, Ruby Pawelek Schumacher, Elizabeth Pawalek Reigh, Roy Mitch v. Hoskins, Inc.
04-14-00807-CV
| Tex. App. | May 20, 2015Background
- Aurora Resources operated wells on the Hoskins and Ray tracts and was responsible for paying royalties from production.
- Appellants (Aery and the James House family) sued Aurora and others claiming they acquired a one-quarter non-participating interest in royalties (NPIRs) via a 1966 deed (Quinn → House) and sought unpaid royalties, conversion, unjust enrichment, tortious interference, and declaratory/injunctive relief.
- Hoskins moved for partial summary judgment; the trial court ruled (Aug. 4, 2014) that the 1966 Quinn→House deed conveying the 623.93-acre Quinn Tract did not convey Quinn’s NPIRs in the separate Ray and Hoskins tracts.
- Following that ruling, the trial court granted derivative summary judgment for Aurora (Sept. 18, 2014), reasoning that claims against Aurora were premised on Appellants’ ownership of the disputed NPIRs.
- Final judgment (Oct. 21, 2014) dismissed or resolved remaining cross-claims; Aurora adopted Hoskins’ brief and argued the trial court correctly interpreted the deeds and properly entered derivative summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1966 Quinn→House deed conveyed Quinn’s NPIRs in the separate Ray and Hoskins tracts | Quinn deed conveyed NPIRs to House/Appellants so they are entitled to royalties from Ray and Hoskins tracts | Deed described only the Quinn Tract; NPIRs in Ray and Hoskins tracts were not conveyed and remained with others | Court held the 1966 deed did not convey NPIRs in Ray and Hoskins tracts to Appellants |
| Are Appellants “payees” under Tex. Nat. Res. Code Ch. 91 (statutory nonpayment claim) | Appellants claim entitlement to unpaid royalties and thus are payees | Appellants lack legal entitlement to the royalties (no NPIRs), so they are not statutory payees | Court held Appellants are not payees under Chapter 91; nonpayment claims fail |
| Unjust enrichment / money had and received — does Aurora hold money belonging to Appellants? | Appellants allege Aurora retained royalty proceeds that belong to them | Any monies from Ray/Hoskins production do not belong to Appellants (no royalty interest), so no unjust enrichment | Court held claims fail because Appellants have no equitable or legal right to the disputed funds |
| Tortious interference / conversion / conspiracy | Appellants allege Aurora interfered with contracts and converted royalties causing damages | Without any underlying royalty interest, Appellants suffered no legally cognizable damage; conversion requires possession/ownership | Court held these tort claims fail as a matter of law (no ownership/possession, no damages); derivative judgment for Aurora affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi, 832 S.W.2d 39 (Tex. 1992) (unjust enrichment principles and when equitable relief applies)
- Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Brady, 811 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. 1991) (elements for tortious interference with contract)
- Tri-State Chems., Inc. v. Western Organics, Inc., 83 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002) (discussing unjust enrichment and money had and received)
- Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. v. Pitts, 236 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. 2007) (equitable-remedy principles)
- Best Buy v. Barrera, 248 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. 2007) (requirement that money held belong to plaintiff for money-had-and-received)
- Staats v. Miller, 243 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1951) (conversion requires ownership or right to possession)
- J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Texas Contract Carpet, Inc., 302 S.W.3d 515 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009) (conversion and possessory-interest discussion)