Luc J. Messier v. Katy Shuk Chi Lau Messier, 458 S.W.3d 155

Luc and Katy divorced; decree (Feb 11, 2011) allocated certain ConocoPhillips stock options: 60% equitable interest to Katy, 40% to Luc, but the company’s plan prevented transfer of option grants—only Luc could exercise them.
Decree created a constructive trust and described Katy as having "equitable ownership" and the right to benefits upon exercise; required Luc to account and transfer net proceeds to Katy.
Katy demanded Luc exercise options; Luc refused, asserting he had discretion to time exercises (claiming fiduciary duty to maximize value and other motivations including travel-restriction enforcement).
Katy sued (enforcement, declaratory relief, contempt, breach of fiduciary duty, accounting); trial court ordered Luc to exercise options as requested, imposed fines for noncompliance, found Luc breached fiduciary duty, and awarded Katy $59,198.75 in fees/costs plus appellate-fee placeholders.
On appeal, parties informed the court Luc had since exercised all options and paid Katy; the court held many relief items enforcing/clarifying the decree and the breach finding were moot, vacated those parts, but resolved two live issues: (1) whether Katy had the right to demand exercise timing, and (2) entitlement/amount of attorney’s fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Katy)	Defendant's Argument (Luc)	Held
Who controls timing of exercising options	Decree gave Katy equitable ownership and the right to direct exercise; Luc must exercise on her demand	Decree left discretion to Luc as constructive trustee to time exercises to maximize value	Court: Decree unambiguous — Katy has the right to determine timing; overrules Luc’s contention
Trial court’s clarifying enforcement orders & contempt remedies	Clarifications and enforcement mechanisms were necessary to effectuate decree	Luc argued court improperly added detailed performance mandates and penalties	Court: Those clarifying/enforcement provisions became moot after Luc exercised options; portions vacated and claims dismissed
Breach of fiduciary duty finding	Katy sought damages based on Luc’s refusal to exercise; claimed breach	Luc said he acted within trustee discretion; dispute over duties	Court: Breach finding rendered moot by subsequent compliance; that portion vacated and claim dismissed
Award of attorney’s fees and costs	Fees were reasonable, incurred to enforce decree; requested trial and appellate fees	Luc challenged legal basis, sufficiency, expert-fee recovery, segregation, and unconditional appellate-fee award	Court: Fees for enforcement action are authorized; trial evidence sufficient; reduced award by disallowing expert fees ($27,090.76); made appellate fees contingent on Katy’s success and delayed accrual of interest until appellate judgment

Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33 S.W.3d 821 (Tex. 2000) (mootness principles; compliance can render appeal moot)
Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2003) (divorce-decree interpretation reviewed de novo)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2005) (dispute over attorney’s fees preserves live controversy)
Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997) (factors for reasonableness of attorney’s fees)
Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (when segregation of fees is required vs. fees intertwined)
In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (mootness of some issues does not defeat appellate review of remaining live issues)
AHF-Arbors at Huntsville I, LLC v. Walker Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 410 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. 2012) (equitable ownership as present right to compel legal title)
In re Marriage of Harrison, 310 S.W.3d 209 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010) (constructive trust background and purpose)