in Re Brothers Oil & Equipment, Inc. Winchester Oil & Gas, LLC And George Burke, 03-17-00349-CV

Ardent I, LLC sued Brothers Oil & Equipment, Winchester Oil & Gas, George Burke, Kacie Carey, and Texas Bank over title to ten oil-and-gas leases and related relief, asserting trespass-to-try-title, quiet-title, trespass, conversion, damages, and fees.
Ardent moved for summary judgment on its trespass-to-try-title claims and against Texas Bank as to certain chattel; hearing ultimately occurred October 24, 2016.
Defendants (Relators) filed counterclaims for fraud in a real estate transaction and fraud in the inducement on October 17, 2016 (seven days before the hearing).
The trial court signed an order on January 5, 2017 granting Ardent summary judgment as to some parties, but the order did not mention Carey and Texas Bank, did not adjudicate all Ardent claims, and did not address Relators’ counterclaims or state finality.
Ardent filed a nonsuit as to Carey and Texas Bank and the trial court later concluded the summary-judgment order was final; the court then signed a nunc pro tunc order (May 1, 2017) correcting the hearing date.
Relators sought mandamus, arguing the summary-judgment order remained interlocutory because it did not dispose of all claims or parties and the court abused its discretion in treating it as final.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the summary-judgment order was final	Ardent: its order plus nonsuit of Carey and Texas Bank made the judgment final and beyond plenary power	Relators: order did not dispose of all claims/parties; therefore interlocutory and not final	Court: Not final — order lacked language of finality and did not adjudicate all claims or parties
Effect of Ardent’s nonsuit of two defendants	Ardent: nonsuit rendered partial summary judgment final as to remaining defendants	Relators: nonsuit did not dismiss Ardent’s other claims against them	Court: Nonsuit did not dispose of Ardent’s remaining claims; it did not make the interlocutory summary judgment final
Timeliness of Relators’ counterclaims	Ardent: counterclaims filed within seven-day window before originally scheduled hearing (Oct 20) were untimely	Relators: counterclaims filed seven days before the actual hearing (Oct 24) and were timely under Rules 63/166a/4	Court: Counterclaims were timely (filed seven days before actual hearing) and properly before the court
Mootness / Adequate remedy argument	Ardent: subsequent suit by Brothers Oil and Burke against Ardent’s owner moots mandamus or provides adequate remedy	Relators: mandamus needed because the purported final summary judgment could bar later suit via res judicata	Court: Suit against owner does not moot mandamus; potential preclusive effect makes mandamus appropriate

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (final judgment disposes of all parties and claims; partial summary judgment not final unless it disposes of every pending claim and party or clearly states finality)
In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus standard: show order is void or trial court abused discretion and no adequate appellate remedy exists)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus principles and standards)
Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2012) (abuse of discretion occurs when ruling is arbitrary or lacks legal support)
Sosa v. Central Power & Light, 909 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. 1995) (amendments or filings seven days before summary-judgment hearing are timely under Rules 63/166a without leave)
IKB Indus. (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Pro-Line Corp., 938 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1997) (summary-judgment hearing is considered a "trial" for purposes of Rule 63)
State & County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Miller, 52 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. 2001) (res judicata applies to finally adjudicated claims)