Chapparal Operating Company v. EnergyPro, Inc.
02-16-00471-CV
Tex. App.Oct 26, 2017Background
- Chapparal (operator) sued EnergyPro (nonoperator working-interest owner) under a joint operating agreement (JOA) to recover roughly $11,000: EnergyPro’s share of operating costs and prior legal fees assessed against Chapparal’s predecessor.
- Chapparal sought breach-of-contract damages, foreclosure of a contractual lien created by the JOA, and attorney’s fees.
- EnergyPro moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment, asserting Chapparal had no evidence on essential elements (standing, statute of limitations, legally incurred expenses, and proper service of the amended petition including lien notice).
- Chapparal also moved for summary judgment on its breach-of-contract claim; the trial court denied Chapparal’s motion and granted EnergyPro’s motion without specifying grounds, rendering judgment that Chapparal take nothing.
- On appeal, Chapparal challenged only the denial of its own summary-judgment motion and did not challenge or address any of the grounds on which the trial court could have granted EnergyPro’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chapparal was entitled to summary judgment on breach of contract | Chapparal: established it was owed damages and fees under the JOA and was entitled to judgment as a matter of law | EnergyPro: asserted no-evidence deficiencies (standing, limitations, incurrence of expenses, service) | Denied — trial court denied Chapparal’s motion and granted EnergyPro’s motion (order silent as to grounds) |
| Whether the grant of EnergyPro’s summary judgment could be upset when appellant did not challenge its grounds | Chapparal: did not challenge the grant | EnergyPro: invoked multiple grounds; appellee’s motion could be dispositive | Appellate court: appellant must negate all possible grounds supporting summary judgment; failure to do so requires affirmance |
| Proper appellate procedure when both parties move for summary judgment | Chapparal: focused only on its own denied motion | EnergyPro: moved and prevailed | Court: when opposing summary-judgment motions result in grant to one side, the loser must challenge the grant as well as the denial to obtain reversal |
| Whether any particular evidentiary deficiency merited reversal on merits | Chapparal: argued merits supported judgment | EnergyPro: raised specific no-evidence points | Court: did not reach merits — affirmed because Chapparal failed to attack the grounds supporting the adverse summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1995) (appellant must negate all possible grounds supporting an adverse summary-judgment order when the trial court’s order is unreasoned)
- Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. 1970) (appellate assignments of error must address each ground supporting summary judgment or a general assignment permitting attack on all grounds)
- Jarvis v. Rocanville Corp., 298 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (pet. denied) (same principle: appellant must negate all possible grounds)
- Broesche v. Jacobson, 218 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (pet. denied) (when both parties move for summary judgment, losing party must challenge the grant to the prevailing motion)
- CU Lloyd’s of Tex. v. Feldman, 977 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1998) (distinguishing when denial of summary judgment is appealable because the trial court granted the opponent’s motion)