Spellmann v. Love, 534 S.W.3d 685

In 1997 Spellmann conveyed 253 acres to Love Partnership Interests (LPI) but reserved a 15-year non‑participating royalty interest (NPRI) that would expire July 15, 2012 if no producing well existed then.
Janet Love divorced Kenneth Love in 2008 and, via the 2009 property settlement, received a 50% non‑executive mineral interest in the Property; she later conveyed that interest to JHL.
LPI leased the property in 2010; wells began producing in August 2012 (after Spellmann’s NPRI expired).
Spellmann sued multiple Love parties alleging breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, negligence, and equitable claims (unjust enrichment, money had and received, constructive trust) asserting royalties received by Janet/JHL should have belonged to him.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Janet and JHL on Spellmann’s equitable claims; Spellmann later settled with and nonsuited the other Love defendants but expressly preserved claims against Janet and JHL for purposes of appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Spellmann waived appellate review of summary judgment by omitting Janet/JHL from later amended petitions	Fourth amended petition omitted detailed claims but retained Janet/JHL in caption and prayer and nonsuit order expressly preserved claims; thus no waiver	Amended pleadings that omit a party or claim effectuate a nonsuit and waive appellate review	Court applied the Ortiz/FKM exception: Spellmann did not waive; appeal proceeds
Whether summary judgment was properly granted on money‑had‑and‑received / unjust enrichment / constructive trust claims against Janet and JHL	Janet had knowledge of deliberate delay and knowingly accepted royalties that rightfully belonged to Spellmann; equitable relief (half the royalties) is proper	Spellmann’s NPRI expired before production; Janet/JHL held valid property/mineral interests acquired via divorce deed and later conveyance; money was not Spellmann’s; unjust enrichment is not an independent cause of action and restitution is barred by the contracts	Summary judgment affirmed: no genuine issue that the royalties did not belong to Spellmann; money‑had and unjust‑enrichment claims fail as a matter of law

FKM P’ship, Ltd. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Houston Sys., 255 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2008) (discusses when amended pleadings supersede earlier pleadings and exceptions based on pleader’s intent)
Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (standard of review for traditional summary judgment)
BCCA Appeal Grp. v. City of Houston, 496 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2016) (summary judgment movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement as a matter of law)
Doss v. Homecoming Fin. Network, Inc., 210 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006) (describes money‑had‑and‑received as equitable remedy to prevent unjust enrichment)
Ortiz v. Collins, 203 S.W.3d 414 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (recognizes pleading‑intent exception to waiver when party reserves rights)
Webb v. Jorns, 488 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. 1972) (omission of a defendant from an amended petition generally drops that defendant)