Stephens & Johnson Operating Co. Henry W. Breyer, III, Trust CAH, Ltd.-MOPI for Capital Account CAH, Ltd.-Stivers Capital Account CAH, Ltd.-Wiegand Resources Capital Account Wiegand Resources C.T. Carden Myrl W. Deitch Trust E.R. Godbout Family Tru v. Charles W. Schroeder, Elsie A. Schroeder Schneider, Hollis London, Terry Mengers Reel, Ted Mengers, Debbie Mengers Quates, August H. Setinmeyer, Carole Schroeder Miller, James M. Schroeder, Sally Schroeder Tinanus, James E. Schroeder, Sue Schroeder Stanfo
04-14-00167-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 9, 2015

Background

  • Lease terminated after 43 years due to cessation of production; production ceased 2003–2004 and again from 2005 onward.
  • Schroeder movant for summary judgment attaching lease, engineer affidavits, and RRC documents showing cessation of production.
  • Appellants did not file opposing affidavits challenging termination or production evidence.
  • Trial court granted summary judgment declaring termination and awarded $63,787.95 in fees against Stephens & Johnson Operating Co.
  • Appellants challenged only the overall reasonableness and amount of fees; affidavits did not address hourly rates or specific entries.
  • Schroeder’s fee proof relied on sworn, contemporaneous billing records (324 total hours) and rates; Appellants argued fees were excessive but did not dispute entries.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether summary judgment termination was proper Schroeder: termination supported by uncontroverted production cessation Stephens & Johnson: contested production history or lease status Yes; termination proper based on undisputed cessation of production
Whether attorneys’ fees award was proper Schroeder: fees reasonable, supported by lodestar and detailed billing Stephens & Johnson: fees excessive; challenged hours Yes; fee award affirmed; lodestar reasonable and documented

Key Cases Cited

  • Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997) (guides on reasonableness and factors for attorneys’ fees)
  • El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2012) (lodestar method; detailed billing records required)
  • Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (abuse of discretion standard for attorney-fee awards)
  • Montano v. City of Laredo, 414 S.W.3d 731 (Tex. 2013) (importance of contemporaneous billing records; presumption of reasonableness of lodestar)
Read the full case