Oral Argument Requested 

NO. 13-14-00727-CV

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 

GLORIA GARCIA 

 Appellant, 

v.

 

GENESIS CRUDE OIL, L.P., 

 Appellee. 

 

Appeal from the 229th Judicial District Court 

Duval County, Texas 

Hon. Martin J. Chiuminatto, Presiding Judge 

 

APPELLEE’S BRIEF

 

 Everard A. Marseglia, Jr. 

 State Bar No. 13014400 

 James T. Kittrell 

 State Bar No. 24078795

 Liskow & Lewis 

 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 1800 

 Houston, Texas 77002-6756 

 (713) 651-2900 (Telephone) 

 (713) 651-2908 (Facsimile) 

 Email: emarseglia@liskow.com 

 Email: jkittrell@liskow.com 

 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 

ACCEPTED

13-14-00727-CV

THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEAL

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS

3/30/2015 4:01:07 PM

DORIAN RAMIREZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS 3/30/2015 4:01:07 PM DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk
-iiIDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Counsel for Appellant Gloria Garcia: 

Andrew M. Greenwell

State Bar No. 00784170

Harris & Greenwell

One Shoreline Plaza

800 North Shoreline Blvd., Suite 2800-S

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

(361) 883-1946 (Telephone)

(361) 882-2900 (Facsimile)

Email: agreenwell@harris-greenwell.com

James R. Harris

State Bar No. 09066000

Harris & Greenwell-Of Counsel

The Six Hundred Building

600 Leopard Street, Suite 924

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

(361) 929-5362 (Telephone)

(361) 462-4580 (Facsimile)

Email: jharris@harris-greenwell.com

Counsel for Appellee Genesis Crude Oil, L.P.: 

Everard A. Marseglia, Jr. 

State Bar No. 13014400

James T. Kittrell

State Bar No. 24078795

Liskow & Lewis

1001 Fannin Street, Suite 1800

Houston, Texas 77002-6756

(713) 651-2900 (Telephone)

(713) 651-2908 (Facsimile)

Email: emarseglia@liskow.com

Email: jkittrell@liskow.com
-iiiTABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ........................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................... iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................v

STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................1

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ...............................................3

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................4

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................6

STANDARD OF REVIEW.......................................................................................6

ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................6

A. The Real Dispute in This Case..............................................................6

B. The Summary Judgment Is Supported by the Plain 

Language of Section 406.......................................................................7

1. The Plain Meaning of “Final Judgment In Favor 

Of The Plaintiff” Requires an Award of Proceeds 

or Interest ....................................................................................8

2. No Authority For Garcia’s Attorney’s Fees Under 

Section 406..................................................................................9

C. Appellant Would Have This Court Rewrite the Resources 

Code.....................................................................................................10

1. Appellant Ignores the Phrase “Final Judgment in 

Favor of the Plaintiff” ...............................................................11

D. The Summary Judgment Is Consistent With Texas Policy 

Against Litigating Only for Attorney’s Fees ......................................12
-ivE. The Trial Court Did Not Determine The Meaning of Any 

Legislative History ..............................................................................13

F. Summary Judgment Was Correct On Garcia’s Requests 

for Declaratory Relief Because There Was No Live 

Controversy to Decide.........................................................................14

1. No Live Controversy.................................................................14

2. Garcia’s Requests for Declarations on the 

“Essential Elements” of a Resources Code Claim 

Are Duplicative .........................................................................16

3. No Controversy Over “Future Rights” to a 

“Binding Division Order” .........................................................17

G. The Trial Court Did No Injustice In Its Final Summary 

Judgment, and Neither Will This Court In Affirming It.....................18

H. Rendition Would Be Improper On This Record .................................19

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER .............................................................................20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................22

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.......................................................................22
-vINDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Blizzard v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 756 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

1988, no writ).......................................................................................................12

Bonham State Bank v. Beadle, 907 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. 1995)..................................15

Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009). .....................13

Etan Indus., Inc. v. Lehmann, 359 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. 2011). ........................... 15, 18

Fire Ins. Exch. v. Sullivan, 192 S.W.3d 99 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, 

pet. denied)...........................................................................................................12

Haden v. David J. Sacks, P.C., 332 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2009, pet. denied).................................................................................................20

Hamra v. Gulden, 898 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, writ dism’d 

w.o.j.). ..................................................................................................................13

Headington Oil Co. v. White, 287 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2009, no pet.)..........................................................................................................9

Holland v. EOG Res., Inc., No.10-09-00153-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 2102 

(Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 24, 2010, no pet.).....................................................9, 16

In re Estate of Nash, 220 S.W.3d 914 (Tex. 2007). ................................................13

Koch Oil Co. v. Wilber, 895 S.W.2d 854 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1995, 

no writ).................................................................................................................17

MBM Fin. Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., L.P., 292 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2009).

..............................................................................................................................12

Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2013). ...............................20

Migl v. Dominion Okla. Tex. Exploration & Prod., Inc., No. 13-05-589-CV, 2007 

Tex. App. LEXIS 1179 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, Feb. 15, 2007, no pet.)......9

Nall v. Plunkett, 404 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2013). .......................................................20
-viOhrt v. Union Gas Corp., 398 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2012, pet. 

denied)................................................................................................................8, 9

Phillips v. Bramlett, 288 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009). .................................................11

Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003)..............6

Tex. A&M Univ.-Kingsville v. Yarbrough, 347 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. 2011). ....... 15, 16

Texas Ass’n of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 

(Tex. 1993).................................................................................................... 16, 19

Texas Dep’t of Public Safety v. Butler, 960 S.W.2d 375 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.)....................................................................................11

Villarreal v. Wennermark, 540 S.W.2d 528 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1976, no 

writ). .....................................................................................................................19

Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001).........................................................16

Statutes

TEX. NAT. RES. CODE § 91.404(c)..............................................................................6

TEX. NAT. RES. CODE § 91.406..................................................................................7
-1-

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

During the first eleven months that Appellant Gloria Garcia, an oil and gas 

lessor, was suing her lessee (who is not involved in this appeal) for unpaid 

royalties, interest and attorney’s fees, she never claimed the royalties, interest or 

attorney’s fees were owed by Appellee Genesis Crude Oil, L.P., her lessee’s first 

purchaser. It was not until seven months after Genesis voluntarily paid Garcia all 

of the royalties she was claiming from her lessee that she then sued Genesis for 

interest, plus attorney’s fees under the Texas Natural Resources Code (“Resources 

Code”). After receiving all of the claimed interest from Genesis ($585.47) within 

three weeks of filing suit, and after settling all claims against her lessee, Garcia 

attempted to breathe life into her attorney’s fees claim, under a tortured reading of 

the Resources Code, by claiming that Genesis nevertheless owed her $200 as a 

“Minimum Award” as well as attorney’s fees, because she was “forced to file suit”

under Section 91.406 of the Resources Code. 

The trial court rejected that argument, and granted summary judgment for 

Genesis, putting an end to this lawsuit. 

Garcia appealed, asking this Court to reverse the district court and render 

judgment on her claim for $200 and $51,786.50 in attorney’s fees accrued through 

July 23, 2014, with a remand for a trial on the amount of Garcia’s fees incurred 

thereafter.
-2-

In granting summary judgment, the trial court necessarily rejected Garcia’s 

novel argument—now raised for this Court—that the Resources Code requires an 

award of $200 and reasonable attorney’s fees in every suit for royalties or interest, 

even where the lessor is not awarded any royalties or interest in a final judgment. 

The trial court properly granted summary judgment against Garcia on her 

claim for the “Minimum Award” of $200 and accompanying attorney’s fees. 

Accordingly, Garcia’s arguments in this Court fail, and the trial court’s judgment 

for Genesis should be affirmed.
-3-

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

This is a straightforward case in which Genesis does not see the need for 

oral argument: the facts are not complicated; the impact of this case is limited to 

the parties; and the trial court did not declare the meaning of any of the statutes 

that Appellant now asks this Court to construe as a matter of law. However, if the 

Court grants oral argument to Garcia, Genesis requests the opportunity to 

participate. For this reason, Genesis has requested oral argument.
-4-

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Notwithstanding Garcia’s having presented to this Court five issues for 

resolution, her briefing confirms that her appeal of the judgment in favor of 

Genesis is fairly narrow:

 Four of Appellant’s issues challenge the summary judgment on what Garcia 

characterizes as what the trial court determined as a matter of law. 

Appellant’s Brief at xiii.

 Appellant’s fifth issue vaguely challenges her “right to proceed to trial” on 

matters that were no longer in issue in the lawsuit.

It remains, however, that the trial court did not specify the grounds for the 

summary judgment, and Garcia’s briefing fails to raise any material fact issues that 

precluded a final summary judgment for Genesis. Moreover, Garcia has failed to 

demonstrate any reason why this Court should make any declarations of what the 

Resources Code means, much less that it guarantees every oil and gas lessor a 

“Minimum Award” of $200 and attorney’s fees where no royalties or interest are 

recovered at trial. Accordingly, Garcia’s arguments fail, and the trial court’s 

judgment should be affirmed. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Genesis does not join in Appellant’s Statement of Facts. However, as this 

Court can resolve this case strictly on the legal issues, and to avoid repetition and 

conserve the Court’s time, Genesis will state here only the undisputed facts, all of 
-5-

which support Genesis’ position, and which fully support this Court’s affirmation 

of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment below: 

 Garcia received and signed two valid Division Orders dated October 10, 

2013, for her royalty interests that remain in effect today. (CR 174-175, 

289-290). 

 On November 1, 2013, while Garcia was pursuing her royalty and other 

(unrelated) claims against her oil and gas lessee, Genesis issued Garcia a 

check for $28,956.71, the full amount of the royalties she had been claiming 

from her lessee. (CR 180-182). 

 On June 4, 2014, Garcia amended her lawsuit against the lessee to add 

Genesis as a defendant on the statutory interest claim under the Resources 

Code. (CR 51-60).

 Beginning June 4, 2014, Garcia pursued her claims for interest and 

attorney’s fees against both Genesis and her lessee. 

 As of the date Garcia sued Genesis, she was claiming $100,531.35 in 

attorney’s fees, accrued through January 31, 2014 and still mounting. (CR 

179).

 Thereafter, on June 25, 2014 (less than 3 weeks after being sued by Garcia),

Genesis issued Garcia a check for $585.47, the full amount of her interest 

claim. (CR 179, 187-91). 

 In July 2014, Garcia and her lessee settled all claims between them, and she 

continued to claim that Genesis owed statutory attorney’s fees and a 

“Minimum Award” of $200. (CR 272). 

 Garcia admits that she has no claim against Genesis for royalties or interest. 

(CR 289-290) (Supp. CR 17-18). 

 On November 3, 2014, the trial court granted a Final Summary Judgment

and entered a take-nothing judgment against Garcia on all claims against 

Genesis. (CR 296-97). 
-6-

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The trial court properly granted summary judgment against Garcia’s claim 

for attorney’s fees. The summary judgment disposed of Garcia’s claim for both 

$200, couched by Appellant as a “Minimum Award” of “monetary damages” that 

must be awarded in every Resources Code case, and attorney’s fees. 

In accordance with the plain meaning of Section 406 of the Resources Code, 

the legislative history and the Supreme Court of Texas’ prohibition on the 

maintenance of lawsuits “solely to recover attorney’s fees,” the take-nothing 

judgment against Garcia should be affirmed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo. Provident Life 

& Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003). Because the trial 

court’s order does not specify the grounds for its summary judgment, this Court 

should affirm if summary judgment would have been appropriate on any ground 

urged by Appellee in the trial court. Id. at 216. 

ARGUMENT 

A. The Real Dispute in This Case

Garcia’s claim against Genesis for interest was based on the only cause of 

action set forth in the Resources Code, under which a “payee” may bring suit for 

the “nonpayment of oil or gas proceeds or interest on those proceeds.” TEX. NAT.

RES. CODE § 91.404(c). Genesis does not dispute that Garcia is a “payee” for 
-7-

purposes of Section 404, and Garcia does not dispute that as of June 25, 2014, she 

had received all of the proceeds and interest she ever claimed against Genesis. 

(CR 179, 195, 289-90) (Supp. CR 17-18). That is not what this case is about.

Instead, Garcia claims that she is entitled to what she labels a “Minimum 

Award,” plus attorney’s fees, under Section 406 of the Resources Code simply for 

filing suit. Nothing in the Resources Code, nothing in Texas law, and nothing in 

Appellant’s briefing establishes that to be correct.

B. The Summary Judgment Is Supported by the Plain Language of Section 

406

This Court needs only to apply the express language of Section 406 in order 

to deny the appeal and affirm the summary judgment. Section 406 reads in plain, 

straightforward language: 

If a suit is filed to collect proceeds and interest under this subchapter, 

the court shall include in any final judgment in favor of the plaintiff 

an award of:

(1) reasonable attorney’s fees; and

(2) if the actual damages to the plaintiff are less than $200, an 

additional amount so that the total amount of damages equals 

$200.

TEX. NAT. RES. CODE § 91.406. The determinative question is whether the phrase 

“in any final judgment in favor of the plaintiff” means what it says, as Genesis 

argues, or whether this Court should declare its meaning to be that argued by 

Garcia. The two constructions argued by the parties are:
-8-

 By Genesis: 

Section 406 provides for an award of attorney’s fees (and 

the “Minimum Award”) only when the plaintiff receives 

a final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction 

for some amount of proceeds and/or interest. 

 By Garcia: 

Section 406 guarantees a plaintiff his/her reasonable 

attorney’s fees and a “Minimum Award” of $200.00 if 

they file suit after providing notice, and some amount of 

proceeds and/or interest are outstanding at the time of 

suit, regardless of whether the plaintiff recovers any 

proceeds or interest at trial.

Genesis construction is supported by the plain language of the statute, relevant 

Texas authorities and Texas’ policy regarding attorneys fees. There is no support 

in any of those for Garcia’s construction.

1. The Plain Meaning of “Final Judgment In Favor Of The Plaintiff” 

Requires an Award of Proceeds or Interest

This Court has held that actual damages (meaning some proceeds or interest)

must be awarded for a judgment to be considered “favorable” under Section 406: 

In this case, judgment was not rendered in favor of appellants. 

Accordingly, appellants were not entitled to recover attorney’s fees 

under this statute. Because appellants did not prevail on any cause of 

action for which attorney’s fees are recoverable and did not recover 

damages, they are not entitled to recover attorney’s fees. 

Ohrt v. Union Gas Corp., 398 S.W.3d 315, 333 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2012, 

pet. denied) (emphasis added). Texas courts construe the plain meaning of a “final 

judgment in favor of the plaintiff” as follows:
-9-

Applying the plain meaning of the word “favorable,” we consider any 

judgment “favorable” to the plaintiff when he obtains a measure of 

relief which leaves him in a better position than he held before filing 

suit. 

Headington Oil Co. v. White, 287 S.W.3d 204, 216 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2009, no pet.).1/ This court and others do not award attorney’s fees absent a 

final judgment awarding some proceeds or interest. See Ohrt v. Union Gas Corp., 

398 S.W.3d at 333.

2/

 Garcia cites no contrary Texas authority. 

2. No Authority For Garcia’s Attorney’s Fees Under Section 406

It is undisputed that Garcia cannot recover proceeds or interest she has 

already been paid. (CR 179, 185, 195, 289-290) (Supp. CR 17-18). Because 

Genesis had satisfied Garcia’s entire claim for proceeds and interest, there could 

not be the “final judgment in favor of the plaintiff,” the necessary predicate to 

attorney’s fees under Section 406. Because there was not, and could not be any 

such final judgment, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is consistent with 

the plain meaning of Section 406 and should be affirmed. 

 

1/

In Ohrt, this Court relied on Headington Oil Co. v. White, 287 S.W.3d 204, 216 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet) (plaintiff must obtain some measure of relief), a 

bright-line rationale that has been consistently followed by numerous Texas courts of appeal. 

2/

See also Holland v. EOG Res., Inc., No.10-09-00153-CV, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 

2102, at *7 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 24, 2010, no pet.) (rejecting attorney’s fees as “there were 

no unpaid royalties for which the trial court could award fees or damages”); Migl v. Dominion 

Okla. Tex. Exploration & Prod., Inc., No. 13-05-589-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 1179, at *10-

11 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, Feb. 15, 2007, no pet.) (rejecting attorney’s fees as plaintiffs did 

not prevail on breach of contract claim or recover Resources Code damages under the Resources 

Code).
-10-

C. Appellant Would Have This Court Rewrite the Resources Code

Faced with the plain-language requirements for attorney’s fees under Section 

406, Appellant would have this Court declare that Section 406 guarantees every oil 

and gas lessor: (a) $200 as a “Minimum Award”; and (b) reasonable attorney’s 

fees if some amount of interest may be owed when suit is filed, even though at trial 

there will be no claim for either unpaid royalties or interest. In order to reach that 

result, this Court would have to read into Section 406 words that the legislature did 

not put there. 

As Genesis argued below, Appellant would have this Court ignore the 

language shown in strikethrough and to supply the additional language shown as 

bracketed:

If a suit is filed to collect proceeds and interest under this subchapter, 

the court shall include in any final judgment in favor of [award] the 

plaintiff an award of:

(1) reasonable attorney’s fees; and

(2) if the actual damages to the plaintiff are less than $200, an 

additional amount so that the total amount of damages equals

$200.

In other words, she would have this Court construe Section 406 to read that 

whenever a suit is filed to collect statutory interest, the court “shall award the 

plaintiff the sum of $200 and reasonable attorney’s fees.” But that construction 

would improperly add to and subtract from the statutory language, Texas Dep’t of 

Public Safety v. Butler, 960 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 
-11-

1998, no pet.), and would fail to “give effect to all the words of a statute, treating 

none of its language as surplusage when reasonably possible,” Phillips v. Bramlett, 

288 S.W.3d 876, 880 (Tex. 2009). 

1. Appellant Ignores the Phrase “Final Judgment in Favor of the Plaintiff” 

Searching for any support in Section 406, Garcia argues that: (1) a judgment 

is “favorable” if a plaintiff can establish the “essential elements of a cause of 

action” under Section 404; and (2) that the “Minimum Award” of $200 satisfies the 

“measure of relief” test. Neither argument is persuasive. To accept the first 

argument, and to construe Section 404 in that way, absent an award of proceeds or 

interest, would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion. 3/

Similarly, a “Minimum Award” of $200 could not constitute the “measure of 

relief” that triggers attorney’s fees under Section 406, because the phrase “final 

judgment in favor of the plaintiff” is a pre-requisite to the “Minimum Award.” 

Substituting an award of $200, which would be totally unrelated to any amount 

claimed as royalty or interest in order solely to justify awarding attorney’s fees 

would replace the statutory language with a circular tautology. 

Finally, Appellant’s “analogy” to a different cause of action under Chapter 

12 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, attempting to point out other Texas 

statues that award attorney’s fees without proof of damages is beside the point. 

 

3/

See infra at p. 15-17.
-12-

That the legislature may choose—in a different statute—to provide for attorney’s 

fees without proof of damages has no bearing on its explicit requirement of a “final 

judgment in favor of the plaintiff” in Section 406. 

D. The Summary Judgment Is Consistent With Texas Policy Against 

Litigating Only for Attorney’s Fees

The Supreme Court of Texas has expressly prohibited the maintenance of 

lawsuits solely for attorney’s fees: “[s]uits cannot be maintained solely for the 

attorney’s fees; a client must gain something before attorney’s fees can be 

awarded.” MBM Fin. Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., L.P., 292 S.W.3d 660, 

663 (Tex. 2009) (emphasis added).

Texas courts have heeded that admonition, routinely denying attorney’s fees 

where all of the claimed damages were paid prior to trial. Specifically, the Dallas 

Court of Appeals has said: 

It is one thing to allow a party an award of attorney fees on a 

successful claim notwithstanding an opposing party’s success on an 

offsetting claim. It is quite another to allow attorney fees on a claim 

which, although successful, was paid in full before trial. Blizzard was 

not awarded any recovery on her claim [the defendant] had already 

paid Blizzard all the damages she was able to prove. 

Blizzard v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 756 S.W.2d 801, 806-07 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 1988, no writ) (emphasis added).

4/

 

 

4/ Many other courts of appeals, too numerous to include here, have followed: see, 

e.g,, Fire Ins. Exch. v. Sullivan, 192 S.W.3d 99, 109-10 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, 

pet. denied) (because insurance company tendered amount exceeding plaintiffs’ damages prior to 

trial, no attorney’s fees could be awarded under the DTPA or Chapter 38); Hamra v. Gulden, 898 
-13-

E. The Trial Court Did Not Determine The Meaning of Any Legislative 

History

Although the trial court made no findings concerning legislative history, and 

it did not opine on the possible role legislative history may have played in its 

judgment, Appellant nevertheless (1) devotes eight pages to Section 406’s 

legislative history (Appellant’s Brief at 16-24) and (2) based on that legislative 

history, argues that the sole purpose and legislative intent of Section 406 was to 

add an “additional incentive for the Payor to make timely payments.” (Appellant’s 

Brief at 14) (emphasis in original). In addition to the fact that the trial court made 

no such determination, that argument fails for at least two reasons. 

First, as the Court has made clear, the language the legislature actually used 

in the statute has priority over what may be contained in the legislative history. In 

re Estate of Nash, 220 S.W.3d 914, 917 (Tex. 2007) (“primary objective is to 

determine the Legislature’s intent which, when possible, we discern from the plain 

meaning of the words chosen”); see also Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 

S.W.3d 433, 442-43 (Tex. 2009) (no reason to look to statute’s legislative history 

when plain language is unambiguous). 

Second, Appellant’s lengthy discussion of legislative history fails to mention 

that portion which contradicts her position: 

 

S.W.2d 16, 19-20 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, writ dism’d w.o.j.) (denying claim for attorney’s 

fees under DTPA when pre-trial settlement with other defendant exceeded jury award of actual 

damages). 
-14-

H.B. 2363 amends Subchapter K, Chapter 91 of the Natural Resources 

Code by adding Section 91.406, providing that if a suit is filed to 

collect proceeds and interest from the sale of oil and gas production, 

the court shall include reasonable attorney’s fees and a Minimum 

Award of $200 in any final judgment in favor of the plaintiff. 

(CR 238) (emphasis added). Accordingly, there was no need for the trial court to 

examine the legislative history of Section 406; there is no evidence that the trial 

court did so; and those portions of the legislative history Appellant has chosen to 

supply provide no basis for reversal of the summary judgment. 

F. Summary Judgment Was Correct On Garcia’s Requests for Declaratory 

Relief Because There Was No Live Controversy to Decide

Appellant argues that she was entitled to proceed to trial on her declaratory 

judgment claims, because there was a “live controversy” over her ability to prove 

the “essential elements” of her Resources Code claim. (Appellant’s Brief 31-5). 

But summary judgment was proper on Appellant’s requests for declaratory relief 

for three reasons: (1) there existed no live controversy over tangible interests; (2) 

the “essential elements” declarations were impermissibly duplicative of Garcia’s 

Resources Code claim; and (3) there was no controversy over Appellant’s “future 

rights.” 

1. No Live Controversy

“A declaratory judgment is appropriate only if a justiciable controversy 

exists as to the rights and status of the parties and the controversy will be resolved 

by the declaration sought.” Bonham State Bank v. Beadle, 907 S.W.2d 465, 467 
-15-

(Tex. 1995). “To constitute a justiciable controversy, there must exist a real and 

substantial controversy involving genuine conflict of tangible interests and not 

merely a theoretical dispute.” Id. (emphasis added). “[D]eclaratory relief is not 

warranted unless the claim presents a ‘substantial controversy’ of ‘immediacy and 

reality.’” Etan Indus., Inc. v. Lehmann, 359 S.W.3d 620, 624 (Tex. 2011) (quoting 

Tex. A&M Univ.-Kingsville v. Yarbrough, 347 S.W.3d 289, 291 (Tex. 2011)). 

Appellant asserts she: 

was involved in an actual ongoing controversy to determine whether 

or not she was able to prove the essential elements of the statutory 

Resources Code cause of action, and if so, was she entitled to the 

Minimum Award and recovery of her reasonable attorney’s fees that 

had been incurred in trying to collect her oil and gas proceeds and 

interest since 2011. 

(Appellant’s Brief 31-32). Even if that assertion were true, which it is not, it 

would still have been proper for the trial court to grant summary judgment, 

because mere assertions about the legality of past conduct, when divorced from 

tangible interests (i.e., proceeds and interest), do not present a live controversy. 

See Etan Indus., Inc., 359 S.W.3d at 624; see also Tex. A&M Univ.-Kingsville, 347 

S.W. at 291.

Moreover, no actual controversy existed. It is undisputed that Garcia: (1) 

received a current division order in October 2013 (CR 174-75); (2) has been paid 

all of her past due proceeds and interest (CR 179) (Supp. CR 17-18); and (3) 

continues to receive timely proceeds under her lease. (CR 179, 185, 195, 289-90). 
-16-

A plaintiff has no standing to sue for past-conduct presenting no actual 

controversy over tangible interests. “For a plaintiff to have standing, a controversy 

must exist between the parties at every stage of the legal proceedings, including the 

appeal.” Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). Without the 

possibility of any proceeds or interests being awarded, there is no live controversy 

involved in a claim for non-payment of proceeds under the Resources Code and the 

case is moot. See Holland, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 2102 at *7. (quoting Williams, 

52 S.W.3d at 184). 

As a result, a judgment on the “essential elements” as requested by 

Appellant would amount to no more than an advisory opinion. See Texas Ass’n of 

Business v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Tex. 1993).

Summary judgment was not improper because there is no ongoing 

controversy that involves Appellant’s tangible interests.

5/

2. Garcia’s Requests for Declarations on the “Essential Elements” of a 

Resources Code Claim Are Duplicative

Garcia’s claim for proceeds and interest was satisfied by Genesis’ full 

payments of the amount she claimed, and she is not permitted to recast those 

claims as a request for declaration of her rights and status under the Resources 

Code: 

 

5/

See also Tex. A&M Univ.-Kingsville, 347 S.W. at 291 (summary judgment proper 

as claim that university’s grievance procedure was unlawful did not present a “live controversy” 

after grant of tenure mooted dispute).
-17-

. . . [A]ppellants allege that the trial court erred by concluding that 

appellees were entitled to declarations of Tesoro's and Koch's status 

under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Appellees in their eighth 

amended original petition requested the trial court enter a declaratory 

judgment establishing the rights of the appellees after lease 

termination and further establishing that Tesoro and Koch were "first 

purchasers" of production and/or "payors" obligated to pay production

proceeds directly to the appellees. These issues of the appellants 

being first purchasers and/or payors were central to the appellees' 

case-in-chief before the court, therefore, seeking declaratory relief 

was improper.

Koch Oil Co. v. Wilber, 895 S.W.2d 854, 866 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1995, 

no writ) (emphasis added). All of Appellant’s claims for declaratory relief relate 

either to elements of her claims under the Resources Code (letters a-g, i-j in the 

Fourth Amended Petition) or a request for judgment and fees under the UDJA 

(letters h and k). (CR 72-73).6/ Requests (a-g, i and j) in Garcia’s Fourth Amended 

Petition (CR 72), were also central to her satisfied claim under Section 404. 

3. No Controversy Over “Future Rights” to a “Binding Division Order”

Appellant’s only other claim of a “live controversy” stems from her request 

for a declaration that: “Genesis. . . had and has a continuing duty to tender and 

maintain a binding division order reflecting the ownership interests of Gloria 

Garcia in the. . . Lease. . . as long as Genesis remains the payor under the lease.” 

(CR 72). As discussed above, there is no controversy over Genesis’ conduct prior 

 

6/ Appellant concedes that “the identity of a proper ‘payor’ and ‘payee’. . . are the 

factual elements to be determined under the case-in-chief.” (CR 215-16).
-18-

to the time it tendered the proceeds and interest, because no tangible interests are at 

stake. 

Similarly, it is undisputed that Garcia received and signed two division 

orders, and that those division orders remain in effect. (CR 174-75). Regardless of 

whether Genesis’ tenders of royalty and interest may have been without waiver of 

Genesis’ rights, there was no “actual controversy” because Garcia received and 

continues to hold valid and subsisting division orders for her royalty interest. Even 

if there had been a dispute about the efficacy of any division orders, which there 

was not, no declaration is needed to “avoid the necessity of future litigation,” 

(Appellant’s Brief at 35), as the Court has explicitly rejected the argument that a 

mooted dispute could present a “live controversy” in the future simply because 

there was a dispute in the past. See Etan Indus., Inc., 359 S.W.3d at 624.

G. The Trial Court Did No Injustice In Its Final Summary Judgment, and 

Neither Will This Court In Affirming It

Garcia argues that applying Section 406 as written would be “unfair,” 

because a payor could avoid the incentive to pay royalties timely “by merely 

waiting until the eve of trial to tender the final payment due.” (Appellant’s Brief at 

22-3). That is, of course, not this case—Garcia received all royalties claimed 

before she sued Genesis and all claimed interest within three weeks of doing so—

so no injustice was done here. Instead, Garcia appeals to this Court’s sense of 

justice and fairness to protect against possible future injustices to other lessors. 
-19-

But that plea merely asks for an advisory opinion, which this Court may not 

render. See Texas Ass’n of Business, 852 S.W.2d at 444. 

Moreover, this Court need look no further than the language of the 

Resources Code itself for the many explicit disincentives to late payment that need 

not be written into Section 406, because the legislature specifically provided for

them:

 accrual of statutory interest (Section 403);

 a private cause of action (Section 404(c)). 

Finally, the San Antonio Court of Appeals rejected the very same argument 

Appellant makes here based on a plain reading of the very same “final judgment” 

language, finding a similar statute unambiguous: 

The statutory language precludes inquiry as to the reason for 

plaintiff’s failure to obtain judgment for at least a part of his claim, 

and there are no words in the statute eliminating the requirement of a 

judgment where the debtor admits that the plaintiff’s claim is just and 

makes full payment prior to rendition of judgment. 

Villarreal v. Wennermark, 540 S.W.2d 528, 530 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1976, 

no writ) (emphasis added). 

H. Rendition Would Be Improper On This Record 

Without argument or authority, Appellant asks this Court to reverse and 

render judgment by issuing declarations construing various sections of the 

Resources Code, and to award her attorney’s fees. (Appellant’s Brief at 37). But 
-20-

Appellant would not be entitled to rendition of judgment in this case, even if this 

Court should reverse the summary judgment, which it should not do.

An appellate court may not render judgment for a party appealing a final 

summary judgment unless that party filed a cross-motion for summary judgment 

that was denied; see Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tex. 

2013); but Garcia did not do so in the trial court, and an appellate court may not 

infer from the pleadings any grounds for summary judgment that were not 

expressly presented to the trial court. Nall v. Plunkett, 404 S.W.3d 552, 555 (Tex. 

2013).

Moreover, the reasonableness of attorney’s fees, whether sought under the 

Resources Code, or otherwise, is a question for the trier of fact; see Haden v. 

David J. Sacks, P.C., 332 S.W.3d 503, 512 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, 

pet. denied); and there is no trial court finding of reasonableness in this case on 

which this Court may render judgment. 

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

For these reasons, Appellee Genesis Crude Oil, L.P. respectfully prays that 

this Court affirm the trial court’s order dated November 3, 2014 granting Genesis’ 

Amended Motion for Final Summary Judgment and grant it such other and further 

relief to which it may be justly entitled, including costs. 
-21-

Respectfully Submitted,

LISKOW & LEWIS

/s/ Everard A. Marseglia, Jr.

Everard A. Marseglia, Jr. 

Texas State Bar No. 13014400

James T. Kittrell

Texas State Bar No. 24078795

First City Tower

1001 Fannin Street, Suite 1800

Houston, Texas 77002

Telephone: (713) 651-2900 

Facsimile: (713) 651-2908

Email: emarseglia@liskow.com

Email: jkittrell@liskow.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

GENESIS CRUDE OIL, L.P. 
-22-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of Appellee’s Brief is being served on all 

attorneys of record for Appellants on this 30th day of March, 2015, by the method 

indicated below.

 /s/ James T. Kittrell

James T. Kittrell

Andrew M. Greenwell

State Bar No. 00784170

Harris & Greenwell

One Shoreline Plaza

800 North Shoreline Blvd., Suite 2800-S

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

(361) 883-1946 (Telephone)

(361) 882-2900 (Facsmile)

Email: agreenwell@harris-greenwell.com

James R. Harris

Harris & Greenwell-Of Counsel

The Six Hundred Building

600 Leopard Street, Suite 924

Corpus Christ, Texas 78401

(361) 929-5362 (Telephone)

(361) 462-4580 (Facsimile)

Email: jharris@harris-greenwell.com

Attorneys for Appellant Gloria Garcia

Certified Mail – RRR

No.: 

Private Delivery

E-Mail

Personal Delivery

Personal Delivery

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that Appellee’s Brief was produced on a computer using 

Microsoft Word and contains 4,277 words, as determined by the word-count 

feature of the word processing software, excluding the sections of the document

listed in TEX. R. APP. 9.4(i)(1). 

 /s/ James T. Kittrell

James T. Kittrell

4193279_10.DOCX