Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 2 , 2012.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 11
- 00056
- CV

B
. Z
. B
. , INC. AND C. MICHAE L ORR , Appellant s V. DONAL S. CLARK , Appellee
On Appeal from the 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 04CV0895



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N A corporation and one of its shareholder s filed a claim against another shareholder alleging that the other shareholder breached a settlement agreement . The claimants alleged that the other shareholder breached the agreement by filing a motion for turnover order, seeking to enforce a judgment. The trial court granted a no

- evidence summary judgment and dismissed this claim. The claimants now challenge this summary judgment. We affirm.2 F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND
A ppellee Donal S. Clark and appellant C. Michael Orr were equal shareholders of appellant B

. Z

. B

. , Inc. and entered into a number of business agreements in 1994

. Di s putes arose between the parties over several of the business agreements , and B

. Z

. B ., Inc. and Orr (hereinafter collectively, the ―BZB Parties‖) filed suit against Clark. Ultimately, the parties resolved those claims by execution of a settlement agreement in 1998

. As part of the settlement, t he claims against Clar k were dismissed with prejudice and the parties amended the business agreements. Several years later, i n 2004, Clark filed suit against the BZB Parties , alleging they had failed to make payments due under

an amended promissory note signed by B

. Z

. B ., Inc. and a guaranty agreement signed by Orr. T he trial court granted Clark’s motion for summary judgment and ordered B.Z.B., Inc., as maker of the note , and Orr, as guarantor, to pay Clark $1, 534 ,774.14 in a j udgment rendered in October 2005 (the ―2005 Judgment‖) . The trial court then severed these claim s , allow ing the judgment to become final and appealable . T he BZB Parties appealed the 2005 Judgment. The BZB Parties maintain that in rendering the 2005 Judgment , the trial court erred by not applying an offset of $204,387.74

. The parties participated in mediation and executed a mediated settlement agreement dated May 8 , 2006 (―Settlement Agreement‖)

. The Settlement A greement , in part, reflects the following t erms :

The BZB Parties will execute a deed o f trust to be placed on real property in Texas City to secure the payment of the 2005 J udgment

. The BZB Parties will withdraw and dismiss their appe al of the 2005 J udgment. Clark will refrain from enforcing or collecting on the 2005 J udgment so long as the terms of the mediated settlement agreement ar e met. All parties will release any pending litigation claims against one another.3

According to the record, the court of appeals granted a joint motion to dismiss the B ZB Parties ’ appeal o f the 2005 Judgment on June 22, 2006

. It is undisputed that after the Settlement Agreement was executed , no other claims were pending

. Clark filed a motion for turnover order o n July 22, 2006 , s eeking to enforce the 2005 J udgment . H e alleg ed that Orr fai led to comply with the S ettlement A greement by refusing to sign the deed of trust . The trial court denied the motion. The BZB Parties filed a bre ach

- of

- contract counter claim against Clark , claiming that Clark breached the Settlement Agreement by filing t he motion for turnover order.
Clark filed a no

- evidence motion for summary judgment on the breach

- of

- contract claim

. He subsequently amended this motion

. In both the original and amended motions, Clark asserted that there was no evidence of damages resulting from any breach of the Settlement Agreement

. The BZB Parties responded to the no

- evidence motion and attached an affidavit of Orr. In addition, t he BZB Parties affirmatively moved for summary judgment on the breach

- of

- contract claim and , in sup port of the motion, attached Orr’s affidavit along with other documents

. Both in response to Clark’s no

evidence motion and in their own motion seeking summary judgment, the BZB Parties claimed damages of being denied the opportunity to contest the 2005 J udgment on appeal. Following a hearing on the parties’ motions, the trial court granted Clark’s amended no
- evidence motion, denied the BZB Parties’ motion, and rendered a final take

nothing judgment in favor of Clark , which the BZB Parties now appeal. I n this appeal,
t he BZB Parties do not challenge the trial court’s denial of their summary

- judgment motion.
I SSUE AND A NALYSIS In a single issue, the BZB Parties challenge the trial court’s order granting summary judgment, claiming that they presented evidence of damages resulting from Clark’s alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement . In reviewing a no

- evidence4

summary judgment, we ascertain whether the nonmovant pointed out summary

- judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of fact as to th e essential elements attacked in the no

evidence motion. Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. , 73 S.W.3d 193, 206

– 08 (Tex. 2002). In our de novo review of a trial court’s summary judgment, we consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the no nmovant, crediting evidence favorable to the nonmovant if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez , 206 S.W.3d 572, 582 (Tex. 2006). The evidence raises a genuine issue of fact if reasonable and fair

- minded jurors could differ in their conclusions in light of all of the summary

- judgment evidence. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes , 236 S.W.3d 754, 755 (Tex. 2007).
D amages to the claimant resulting from the alleged breach is o ne of the essential elements of a breach

- of

- contract claim. See WTG Gas Processing, L.P. v. Conoc o Phillips Co. , 309 S.W.3d 635, 643 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). In his no

- evidence motion, Clark a sserted that the BZB Parties ha d no evidence of damages. In response, t he BZB Parties claim ed that they sustained damages resulting from the dismissal of the appeal of the 2005 Judgment. The BZB Parties alleged that they would have been entitled to at least $204, 387.77 had they successfully prosecuted the appeal of the 2005 Judgment.
T he record reflects that, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the BZB Parties moved to dismiss their appeal of the 2005 Judgment , and th e court of appeals granted this motion on June 22, 2006. O ne month later, Clark filed the motion for turnover order. There is no summary

-

judgment evidence showing that (1) the dismissal of the appeal resulted from Clark’s filing of a motion for turnover order, or (2) the BZB Parties would have been able to succe ssfully prosecute their appeal had Clark no t filed the motion for turnover order. The trial court denied Clark’s motion for turnover order, and it took no action to enforce the 2005 Judgment. In their response to Clark’s no

- evidence motion, the BZB Parti es submitted an affidavit of Orr. But the only amount s of damages to5

which Orr testifies in the affidavit are those allegedly resulting from dismissal of the appeal. Orr alleg es that he was entitled to a credit of $204,387.74 for all payments made by B

. Z

. B ., Inc. to Clark, and he assert s that the trial court improperly failed to credit that amount in the 2005 Judgment. Orr states that as a direct result of Clark’s breach of the Settlement Agreement, in filing the motion for turnover order, the BZB Partie s lost the ability to appeal the 2005 Judgment. Orr also recites a number of payments that the BZB Parties claim to have made to Clark, and Orr claims da mages in the amount of $180,020 result ing from dismissal of the appeal. No other exhibits accompanied the BZB Parties’ response to Clark’s no

- evidence motion. Orr’s conclusory statement , that as a direct result of Clark’s breach of the Settlement Agreement the BZB Parties lost the right to contest the allegedly erroneous 2005 Judgment , does not raise a genuine fact issue precluding summary judgment

. See Wadewitz v. Montgomery , 951 S.W.2d 464, 466 (Tex. 1997) ; Elizondo v. Krist , 338 S.W.3d 17, 22 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. filed) . A conclusory statement is one that does not provide the underlying facts to support the conclusion. 1001 McKinney Ltd. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Capital , 192 S.W.3d 20, 27 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). The BZB Parties also refer to the following documents: t wo of the 1994 business agreements, the trial court’s October 2005 summary

-

judgment order, the Settlement Agreement, the BZB Parties’ motion to dismiss the appeal, and Clark’s mot ion for a turnover order. But none of these documents support the statements reflected in Orr’s affidavit. Orr’s statement that the alleged breach of contract resulted in the BZB Parties’ loss of their ability to challenge the allegedly erroneous 2005 Judgment is conclusory and does not create a genuine fact issue. See Wadewitz , 951 S.W.2d at 466. Under the applicable standard of review, the summary
- judgment evidence does not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the BZB Parties sustained damages as a result of the alleged breach of contract. See City of Keller v . Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802, 810 (Tex. 2005). The trial court did not err in6

granting Clark’s no

- evidence motion. 1 See id. Accordingly w e overrule the BZB Parties’ sole issue

. The t rial court’s judgment is affirmed

.

/s/ Kem Thompson Frost Justice

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Seymore, and Jamison.

1 The BZB Parties assert that to hold that their dismissal of the appeal does not amount to recoverable damages would be tantamount to holding that dismissing one’s right to appeal has no value. The summary
- judgment evidence does not raise a fact issue as t o whether the dismissal of the appeal resulted from Clark’s filing of the motion for turnover order. The cases cited by the BZB Parties are not on point.