BV Energy Partners, LP and BV Real Estate Management, Inc. v. Richard M. Cheatham, Tsar Energy, LLC
05-14-00373-CV
| Tex. App. | May 12, 2015Background
- BV Energy Partners (BV) invested roughly $500,000 based on Marcellus Shale opportunities introduced through Richard Cheatham and associates. BV alleged those investments produced over $41 million in profits.
- BV sued asserting (1) a partnership to invest in Cheatham’s Marcellus deals, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) money had and received (seeking disgorgement/constructive trust).
- Cheatham denied a partnership, asserted BV invested only in specific leases (Parkersburg, Rupert, Bowden), and repeatedly offered BV what he calculated as BV’s share (~$1.6–$2.5 million), which BV refused to accept.
- Trial evidence conflicted about (a) whether BV expected an interest in all Marcellus deals or only specific leases, (b) whether Cheatham contributed sweat equity and cash or was unjustly enriched, and (c) the effect of substantial legal/settlement expenses Cheatham incurred.
- The jury found against BV on the partnership claim and on the money-had-and-received claim; the trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment. BV appealed challenging jury-charge phrasing and sufficiency of evidence.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (a) BV presented an "all-or-nothing" theory at trial so the court did not err by asking about "all deals," and (b) the evidence supported the jury’s equitable balancing against BV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury questions using “all deals” (vs. “any deals”) were erroneous | The wording prevented jury from awarding BV recovery for some leases (e.g., Parkersburg/Rupert) and BV did not pursue an all-or-nothing theory | BV presented an all-or-nothing theory and pleadings/evidence supported submitting "all" | Court: No error — BV pleaded and tried an all-or-nothing theory, so phrasing was proper |
| Whether Cheatham held money that in equity and good conscience belonged to BV (money-had-and-received) — legal sufficiency | BV: Evidence proved unjust enrichment; BV entrusted funds and is entitled to disgorgement of profits (~$21M+) | Cheatham: He offered BV calculated shares multiple times; incurred large legal/settlement expenses and contributed cash/sweat equity, negating unjust enrichment | Court: Legal sufficiency satisfied for jury to resolve; jury could find Cheatham not unjustly enriched; resolves against BV |
| Whether the money-had-and-received finding was factually insufficient | BV: Preponderance shows verdict against clear weight of evidence; BV had unrefuted right to a share | Cheatham: Conflicting evidence about expenses, contributions, offers to pay, and BV’s refusal to accept checks supports verdict | Court: Factually sufficient — jury’s adverse finding is not against the great weight and preponderance of evidence |
| Whether preservation of charge objection was adequate | BV: Objected at trial to use of "all" and requested "any" | Cheatham: Objection was not specific enough to preserve error | Court: Did not reach preservation issue because no charge error existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Latham v. Burgher, 320 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (discussing order of appellate review for charge error vs. sufficiency)
- St. Joseph Hosp. v. Wolff, 94 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. 2002) (standard for charge-error analysis)
- Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. 2000) (preservation of jury-charge error)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing factual sufficiency and witness credibility)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (legal sufficiency review; scintilla rule)
- Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. v. Pitts, 236 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. 2007) (money-had-and-received as equitable claim)
- MGA Ins. Co. v. Charles R. Chesnutt, P.C., 358 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (equitable nature of money-had-and-received and defenses)
- Best Buy Co. v. Barrera, 248 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. 2007) (equitable balancing in restitution claims)