Gloria Garcia v. Genesis Crude Oil L.P.
13-14-00727-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 30, 2015Background
- Gloria Garcia (lessor) sued Genesis Crude Oil (first purchaser/payor) under the Texas Natural Resources Code seeking unpaid royalties, interest, a statutory “Minimum Award” of $200, and attorney’s fees under Tex. Nat. Res. Code § 91.406.
- Genesis paid the full royalties at issue on Nov. 1, 2013 and paid the full interest claim ($585.47) within three weeks after Garcia added Genesis as a defendant (June 25, 2014).
- After those payments and after settling with her lessee, Garcia continued to press claims for the $200 Minimum Award and statutory attorney’s fees, arguing § 91.406 entitles a plaintiff to fees and the $200 whenever suit is filed to collect proceeds/interest.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Genesis, entering a take‑nothing judgment against Garcia on all claims; Garcia appealed challenging the grant of summary judgment and seeking fees and the $200 award.
- Appellee (Genesis) argued § 91.406 requires a “final judgment in favor of the plaintiff” awarding proceeds or interest before fees or the $200 minimum can be awarded; because Genesis had paid the claimed amounts pretrial, no such final judgment in plaintiff’s favor could occur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 91.406 entitles a plaintiff to reasonable attorney’s fees when suit is filed even if no proceeds/interest are awarded at final judgment | Garcia: Filing a suit to collect unpaid proceeds/interest (when some amount was outstanding at filing) triggers the $200 Minimum Award and fees regardless of ultimate recovery | Genesis: § 91.406 applies only where the court enters a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff awarding proceeds/interest; pretrial payment eliminating any favorable judgment precludes fees/$200 | Summary judgment affirmed for Genesis: fees and $200 require a final judgment awarding proceeds/interest in favor of plaintiff |
| Whether a plaintiff may obtain declaratory relief on the “essential elements” of a Resources Code claim once the tangible monetary claims have been paid | Garcia: Declaratory relief appropriate to establish entitlement to Minimum Award and fees | Genesis: No justiciable controversy remains because all tangible claims were paid; declarations would be advisory or duplicative | Summary judgment proper: no live controversy and declarations were duplicative or moot |
| Whether legislative history requires a different construction of § 91.406 (favoring plaintiff) | Garcia: Legislative intent was to incentivize timely payment and thus support awarding fees/$200 upon suit even if later paid | Genesis: Plain statutory text controls; legislative history does not override unambiguous language | Court relies on plain text; legislative history not needed to deny plaintiff’s construction |
| Whether appellate court should render judgment awarding fees/$200 if summary judgment reversed | Garcia: Requests rendition and award of fees | Genesis: Rendition improper because Garcia did not file cross‑motion for summary judgment and reasonableness of fees is a fact issue | Court: Rendition would be improper on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (summary judgment review standard and affirmance if any ground supports judgment)
- MBM Financial Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., L.P., 292 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2009) (court will not permit lawsuits maintained solely to recover attorney’s fees)
- Ohrt v. Union Gas Corp., 398 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2012) (no attorney’s fees under § 91.406 absent recovery of damages/proceeds)
- Headington Oil Co. v. White, 287 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. App.—Houston 2009) (judgment is “favorable” only when plaintiff obtains a measure of relief)
- Villarreal v. Wennermark, 540 S.W.2d 528 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1976) (statute requiring judgment precludes fees when defendant pays plaintiff in full before judgment)
- Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001) (controversy must exist at every stage of proceedings for standing)
- Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2013) (appellate rendition limits; cross‑motion requirement)
- Nall v. Plunkett, 404 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2013) (appellate courts may not infer grounds for summary judgment not presented to trial court)