1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO . 09
- 1 4
- 00 007
- C V



### ____________________ FORT APACHE ENERGY, INC. , Appellant
V. HOUSTON ENERGY, L.P., Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________ On A ppeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No . CV1206150

________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this appeal, we consider whether the trial court proper l y granted a motion for summary judgment in an oil and gas royalty dispute. Fort Apache, Inc. appeals from the trial court’s judgment award ing Houston Energy, L.P. a 1.501981 percent overriding royalty interest in all of the oil, gas, and other minerals produced by two wells in Liberty County, Texas. W e conclude that the trial court properly found that the agreement between the parties is unambiguous, that Fort Apache’s2 obligations under the assignment were not excused based on its cla im of mistake, and that the overriding royalty reserved by Houston Energy through the assignment is 1.501981 percent of all of the minerals produced by the two wells that are producing from the tracts whose minerals are the subject of the assignment. We af firm the trial court’s final judgment

. Background This dispute concerns an overriding royalty interest retained by Houston Energy in an agreement in which it assigned Fort Apache its interests in the minerals on several tracts of property

. 1 T he mineral interests that Houston Energy owned are traced to several leases , but only the Balcon Steel and the Maley leases are relevant to the arguments that the parties present in the appeal. According to Fort Apache , it agreed to pay an overriding royalty based o n a Houston Energy fractional ownership in the minerals that it received under the assignment . In other words, Fort Apache contends that the agreement should not be construed to require that it pay an overriding royalty interest on all oil and gas sales from the production relevant to the tracts at issue without reducing its payment to

1 There are two wells that produce minerals relevant to the tracts, which the parties refer to as the Penn Cat Number One and the Penn Cat Number Two. The record is not clear whether the tracts discussed that are relevant to these two wells had been pooled by the lessor of the minerals into pooled units.3 account for the fact that Houston Energy did not own one hundred percent of the minerals in the tracts that were the subject of its assignment

. In response, Houston Energy contends that the agreement is unambiguous, and that it obligates Fort Apache to pay 1.501981 percent of all of the oil and gas

s old from the tracts relevant to the assignment, without reduction based on its fractional ownership interest in the minerals t hat it owned on the tracts that were assigned. With respect to Houston Energy’s reservation of an overriding royalty, the assignment, which was executed by both of the parties in 2010, provides: [Houston Energy] does hereby except and reserve a net overri ding royalty interest of 1.501981% o f 8/8ths (“Said Overriding Royalty Interest”) in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals produced, saved and marketed pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Subject Leases, covering the lands described therein , hereinafter called “said lands,” including any extensions or renewals of the Subject Lease s acquired by or for [Houston Energy]

. . . . Such overriding royalty payments shall be paid or delivered to [Houston Energy] in the same manner as that provided in the Subject Leases for the payment of royalty to the Lessor therein, subject to the terms and provisions hereof. According to Fort Apache , it never intended to agree to a provision that would require that it pay Ho uston Energy an overriding royalty on all the minerals produced by the wells without any reduction to account for the fact that Houston Energy did not own all of the minerals in the tracts that are the subject of the assignment

. To support its argument, Fo rt Apache points to an overriding royalty4 agreement that it negotiated with another entity a pproximately a week before
enter ing into the agreement at issue

. Under that agreement , which relates to minerals on the same tracts as those in Houston Energy’s assignment, the percentage overriding royalty provision account ed for that entit y’ s fractional ownership of the minerals in the tracts subject to its assignment

. In 201 2 , Houston Energy sued Fort Apache for breaching the assignment

a fter Fort Apache suspended payments o f Houston Energy’s overriding royalty.
A ddition ally , Houston Energy asked the trial court to declare the agreement between Houston Energy and Fort Apache to be vali d and enforceable. In 2013, Houston Energy filed a traditional motion for summary judgment, seeking to resolve Fort Apache’s claim that it was not required to calculate the overriding royalty as a product of the stated percentage multiplied by all of the minerals produced from the tr acts covered by the assignment

. Additionally, Houston Energy’s motion sought to establish that the total overriding royalty burden created by the assignment did not exceed a five percent maximum overriding royalty restriction provision that is found in two of the leases to which Houston Energy traces its minerals. 2 Houston Energy ’s motion is supported by the

2 The Balcon Steel and Maley leases , two of the leases subject to the assignment, contain provis ion s that restrict Houston Energy from creating an5 affidavit of Allen Wilhite, Houston Energy’s vice

- president. Wilhite’s affidavit addresses the restriction on the maximum overriding royalty limitation in the Balcon Steel and Maley leases. 3 Wilhite concludes that the total overriding royalty burden on the leases, including Houston Energy ’s overriding royalty of 1.501981 percent, does not exc e ed the five percent restriction provision found in t he Balcon Steel and Maley leases

. In its response to Houston Energy’s motion , Fort Apache argued that the agreement should be reformed so that the total overriding royalty burden to the overriding burden that together with other o verriding royalty reservations would burden those leases by an overriding royalty of more than five percent.
3 The restriction , which is found in an addendum to the Maley/Fort Apache lease, states: “Additional Burdens: It is agreed by and between Les s or and Lessee that Lessee shall not create additional overriding royalty burdens affecting the leased premises in excess of (5%) without the prior approval of Lessor .” The parties do not dispute that this same provision is found in the Balcon Steel/Fort Apache lease, another lease that is referenced in the assignment. Because many of the provisions in the copies of the leases that were filed as summary judgment evid ence are illegible , we are unable to verify that an overriding royalty restriction identical to the one in the Maley lease is also contained in the Balcon Steel lease. Nonetheless, the parties do not dispute that the stated restrict ion is in these two leas es, nor do they dispute that these two leases are among the leases that are the subject of Houston Energy’s assignment. Therefore, we treat the representation that the restriction is in both leases as undisputed for the purpose of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38. 1 ( g) (stating that in a civil case, an appellate court will accept as true the facts stated in the appellant’s brief unless another party contradicts them); see also Western Steel Co. v. Altenburg , 206 S.W.3d 121, 124 (Tex. 2006) (noting that an appellate court normally accepts the facts that the appellant states in its brief unless the opposing party contradicts them).6 Maley and Balcon Steel leases would not violate the restrictions in the Balcon Steel and Maley leases

. According to Fort Apache , Houston Energy’s overriding royalty should be reduced to reflect the working interest that Houston Energy owned in the leases that it assigned to Fort Apache , 6.81144 percent

. According to
Fort A pache , unless Houston Energy’s overriding royalty is reduced, the total overriding royalty burden violates the royalty restriction provision found in the Balcon Steel and Maley leases

. Additionally, Fort Apache argues that the summary judgment evidence rai ses fact issues on its claim that Houston Energy’s overriding royalty percentage should be reduced to account for its fractional ownership in the minerals that it assigned to Fort Apache

. Fort Apache ’s response is supported by the affidavit of Fort Apache’s president, Allan B l oxsom III. B l ox s om’s affida v it assert s that Fort Apache intended that Houston Energy’s a ssignment mirror the other assignment that executed with another party approximately a week earlier , which accounted for that parties’ fractional ownership of the minerals that Fort Apache received in that assignment. Blox s om also suggests that the overriding royalty burden created by Houston Energy’s construction of the agreement results in a total overriding royalty burden on the Balcon Steel and Maley leases of more than five percent. Finally, Blox s om suggests that the language used to describe the overriding royalty7 that Houston Energy reserved in its agreement with Fort Apache is ambiguous or resulted from a mistake that the court sho uld reform. Houston Energy objected to several of the paragraphs in Blox s om’s affidavit . According to Houston Energy , some of Blox s om’s statement s violate the parol evidence rule , while other statements are merely legal conclusions that were
not proper summary jud g ment evidence. T he trial court sustained Houston Energy’s objections to Blox s om’s affidavit

. 4 In June 2013, t he trial court granted Houston Energy’s motion for summary judgment . In the judgment, the trial court found, as a matter of law, “ that the subject assignment is valid and enforceable and that [Fort Apache ] has breached its obligation s under the assignment and is liable to [Houston Energy].” At that point, however, the trial court did not award any damages based on its finding that Fort
A pache had breached the agreement. We note that Houston Energy ’s motion for summary judgment did not request the trial court resolve its claim of damages based on its claim that Fort Apache breach ed the parties’ agreement . Thus, t he trial
court ’s ruling that Fort Apache breached the agreement was not final because it did

4 Fort Apache also objected to some of the statements made by Houston Energy’s vice

- president, Wilhite, in his affidavit. However, the trial court overruled these objections, and Fort Apache has not complained of these rulings in its appeal.8 not dispose of all of the issues raised by Houston Energy in its suit . Tex. R. Civ. P. 301 (“Only one final judgment shall be rendered in any cause except where it is otherwise specifical ly provided by law.”)

. Approximately three months later , Houston Energy filed a second motion for summary judgment . In its second motion, Houston Energy asked the trial court to resolve all remaining issues, including its claim for damages . It also asked the trial court to award its attorney’s fees, and to declare that Houston Energy was entitled to collect future overriding royalt ies based on the agreement’s stated percentage of 1.501981 percent

. In Fort Apache ’s response, Fort Apache clai med that the case could not be resolved in summary judgment proceeding s because the evidence raised issue s of material fact regarding Houston Energy’s claim of breach

. Additionally, Fort Apache objected to the trial court awarding attorney’s fees in a

summ ary judgment proceeding

. H owever, Fort Apache has not complained in its appeal about the trial court’s award of fees or included an issue complaining that the damage award is excessive

. Subsequently, the trial court grant ed Houston Energy’s second motion for summary judgment , and its judgment dispose d of all of Houston Energy’s claims. The trial court found that Fort Apache owed Houston Energy $121,601.84 on Houston Energy’s claim that Fort Apache had failed to pay what it owed in9 overriding royalties. The trial court calculated the award by multiplying 1.501981 percent times the receipts on the sales of all minerals produced from the tracts that Houston Energy assigned to Fort Apache

. T he trial court also awarded declaratory relief, declaring that the a ssignment on record “with the Clerk of Liberty County,
Texas set s the duties , rights, and obligations , between the Parties. As such, all future royalty payments shall be made in compliance with the Assignm en t and Bill of Sale with Ove r riding Roya l ty Intere st[.]” In its appeal, Fort Apache argu es that (1) genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the meaning of the a ssignment ; (2) genuine issues of material fact exist on Fort Apache’s affirmative defenses , which assert ed that the terms of the parties’ written agreement result ed f rom a unilateral or a mutual mistake ; (3) the agreement regarding Houston Energy’s overriding royalty is ambiguous ; and (4) the trial court erred by denying its objections to Wilhite ’s affidavit

. Standard of Review On appeal, we review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment using a de novo standard

. See Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett , 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005); Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott , 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003). With respect to Houston Energy’s traditional motion for summary judgment , the trial court concluded that there were no genuine issues10 of material fact on any material issues and that Houston Energy was entitled to judgment as a matter of l aw. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Sw. El e c. Power Co. v.
Grant , 73 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2002); Randall’s Food Mkts., Inc. v. Johnson , 891 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. 1995). In an appeal from a summary judgment ruling , all of the evidence presented to the trial court during the summary judgment proceedings is considered by the appeals court in the light most favorable to the party against whom the trial court ruled

. Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding , 289 S.W.3d 844, 848 (Tex. 200 9); City of Keller v. Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). In reviewing the summary judgment evidence, we take as true all of the evidence that is favorable to the nonmovant, and we indulg e every reasonable inference and resolv e any doubts in the evidence in the nonmovant’s favor

. See City of Keller , 168 S.W.3d at 824; Joe v. Two Thirty Nine
J

oint Venture , 145 S.W.3d 150, 157 (Tex. 2004). If the summary judgment evidence establishe s that the movant is entitled to a ruling in its favor , we th en review the opposing party’s summary judgment evidence to determine if that evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact on at least one of the elements of the claim that is in dispute

. See C ity of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth ., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678

- 79 (Tex. 1979).11 Enforceability of an Unambiguous Contract In this case, t he dispute concerns the meaning of the parties’ agreement, whether Houston Energy’s agreement created a total overriding royalt y burden affecting two of the leases of more than five percent, and whether Fort Apache raised a material fact issue on its claim that the agreement should be reformed based on its claim of mistake

. Initially, we note th e nature of mineral leases and assignments, as they are the types of agreement s t hat are relevant to this case. “An oil and gas lease is a contract, and its terms are interpreted as such.” Tittizer v. Union Gas Corp ., 171 S.W.3d 857, 860 (Tex. 2005). “ An assignment is a contract between the assignor and assignee, and operates by way of agreement or contract. ”
Univ

. of Tex

. Med

. Branch at Galveston v. Allan , 777 S.W.2d 450, 453 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.)

. In the a bsen ce of an ambiguity, courts will enforce written agreement s between parties based on the intentions of the parties as th ose intentions are expressed in the parties’ agreement. Tittizer , 171 S.W.3d at 860. To prevail on its breach of contract claim, Houston Energy was required to prove (1) the existence of a valid contract, (2) the plaintiff perform ed or tender ed performance, (3) the defendant breach ed the contract , and (4) the plaintiff was damage d

. See Bank of Tex. v. VR Elec., Inc. , 276 S.W.3d 671, 677 (Tex. App.

—12 Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied). A breach occurs when a party fails to perform a n act that it has expressly or impliedly promised to perform. Case Corp.
v. Hi

- Class Bus. Sys. of Am., Inc. , 184 S.W.3d 760, 769

- 70 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2005, pet. denied). In this case, Houston Energy filed a summary judgment motion that claimed that Fort Ap ache failed to fully perform its obligation to pay the overriding royalties that it owed under the terms of the parties’ written assignment

. Since issues one and three revolve around the trial court’s finding that the assignment was not ambiguous , we discuss these two issues together. In issue one, Fort Apache argues that the summary judgment evidence before the trial court raise s genuine issues of material fact on its claims that the parties do not have a valid and enforceable agreement. In issue three, Fort Apache contends the trial court erred in finding that the assignment was unambiguous. Fort Apache does not contend that it is not a party to the assignment at issue. Instead, Fort Apache contends that the assignment, due to its ambiguity, fail ed to accurately reflect the agreement between it and Houston Energy. When a contract is not ambiguous, constru ing the meaning of the terms in a contract are matter s that are resolved by the court

. See MCI Telecomm

. Corp. v. Tex

. U tilities Elec. Co ., 995
S.W.2 d 647, 650 (Tex. 1999). To determine the meaning of a written agreement, and to evaluate a claim that it is ambiguous, we examine and consider the entire13 contract, harmonizing and giving effect to all provisions so that none are rendered meaningless

. Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 341 S.W.3d 32 3 , 333 (Tex. 2011). A contract is unambiguous if it can be given a definite or certain legal meaning. DeWitt Cnty

. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Parks , 1 S.W.3d 96, 100 (Tex. 1999).
Even if the parties disagree on the meaning of a contract

— as occurred here

— a disagreement about an agreement’s meaning is not sufficient to ma k e the contract ambiguous. See Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc. , 207 S.W.3d 342, 345 (Tex. 2006). Addit ionally, p arol evidence about what a party intended when it negotiat ed a written agreement is not evidence that is relevant to whether the writing is ambiguous

. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. CBI Indus., Inc. , 907 S.W.2d 517, 520 (Tex. 1995). Fort Apache points to the “1.501981% of 8/8ths” language in the agreement’s reservation clause as the language that makes the assignment ambiguous. In the reservation clause, Houston Energy reserved a net overriding royalty of 1.501981 percent of all production attributable to the “Subject Leases.” 5

5 The a ssignm ent defines the “Subject Leases” as consisting of leases, unit designations, and right of way agreements, which are then further described in an attached exhibit. The attached exhibit lists four leases, two unit designations, and nine right of way agreemen ts. The assignment then defines these instruments, collectively, as the “Subject Leases

. ”14 If these terms of the reservation clause can “be given a definite or certain meeting as a matter of law,” t he reservation clause is not ambiguous

. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. New Ulm Gas, L td

. , 940 S.W.2d 587, 589 (Tex. 1996). In the assignment, the parties expressed the reservation clause as a percentage of a fraction. Generally, courts construe the size of a reservation of a fraction of a fraction by multiplying the two fractions together. Pickens v. Hope , 764 S.W.2d 256, 258

- 59 (Tex. Ap p . — San Antonio 1988, writ denied) (holding “an undivided 1/4 of the usual 1/8 royal t y” reserved a fixed one thirty

- second royalty);
Ha w kins v. Tex. Oil & Gas Corp. , 724 S.W.2d 878, 889 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (holding that a grant of “1/4 of the 1/8 royalty interest” conveyed a fixed one thirty

- second royalty interest); Helms v. Guthrie , 573 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Fort Worth 1978, writ ref’ d n.r.e.) (holding reservation of “1/2 of the 1/8 th royalty (same being a 1/16 th of the total production)” described a fixed royalty). Under Houston Energy’s agreement with Fort Apache , the parties chose to
express the stated overriding royalty interest a s a product of two numbers. Because
t he reservation clause can be given a specific and definite meaning , it is not15 ambiguous

. We hold that the trial court gave proper meaning to the plain language of the provision by multiplying the numbers together

. 6 Fort Apache also argues that it expected the reservation clause to reflect the fractional interest that Houston Energy held in the leases that it assign ed to Fort Apache. However, a party’s testimony about what it sought to accomplish in negotiating a writ ten agreement is not relevant to constru ing an otherwise unambiguous written instrument. See Sun Oil Co. v

. Madeley , 626 S.W.2 d 726, 732 (Tex. 1981). “Where the meaning of the contract is pla i n and unambiguous, a party’s c onstru c tion is immaterial.” Id

.

6 In its appeal, Fort Apache has not raised an issue that asserts the trial court failed to apply a proportionate reduction clause, found in another part of the assi gnment, when it calculated the damages that resulted from Fort Apache’s breach. The assignment’s proportionate reduction clause provides: If any of the Subject Leases cover less than the entire fee simple mineral estate in a tract of land described therei n, then the overriding royalty interest hereby reserved by Assignor shall be reduced proportionately as to such tract of land. Although Fort Apache has not argued this provision applies with respect to the trial court’s damage award, by affirming the judgment we do not intend to imply that the damages that the trial court awarded under the judgment on Houston Energy’s breach of co ntract claim are consistent with all of the terms of the parties’ agreement. However, we are not allowed to reverse a judgment based on unassigned error. See Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1993) (“We have held re peatedly that the courts of appeals may not reverse the judgment of a trial court for a reason not raised in a point of error.”) ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 38.1 (the appellant’s brief must state concisely all issues presented for appeal).16 We are also not persuaded that any issues of material fact exist on the question of whether the parties formed a valid contract. A meeting of the minds is necessary for parties to form binding contracts. See David J. Sacks v. Haden , 266 S.W.3d 447, 450 (Te x. 2008). However, parties that sign written agreements are presumed to know the ir contents. See In re Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc. , 257 S.W.3d 228, 232 (Tex. 2008). Therefore, Fort Apache was required to read the written agreement before signing it to protect itself from an unfavorable bargain. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 134 & n.37 (Tex. 2004). Even if Fort Apache ’s employees or its agents failed to read the agreement, “ a party is bound by the terms of the contract [it] signed, regard less of whether [it’s agents] read it or thought it had different terms [,] ” in the absence of a claim of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit. In re McKinney , 167 S.W.3d 833, 835 (Tex. 2005).
F ort Apache also argues that the reservation clause is ambiguous based on a restriction found in two of the “Subject Leases

. ” The provision in those leases restrict s Houston Energy from creating a total overriding royalty burden of more than five percent. According to Fort Apache, Houston Energy’s construction of the reservation clause violat es the total overriding royalty restriction. But, Houston Energy ’s overriding royalty is 1 .501981 percent , which is the same percentage as that reserved by Houston Energy on all of the minerals attribu t ed to the Balcon17 Steel and Maley leases. In this case, the summary judgment evidence does not show that Houston Energy created an additional overriding royalty burden that, when added with others, violated the restriction found in the Balcon Steel and Maley leases. We will not rewrite the parties’ unambiguous agreement so that it contains an agreement that alters the bargain the parties reduced to writing

. See Tenneco Inc. v. Enter. Prods. Co. , 925 S.W.2d 640, 646 (Tex. 1996) (“We have long held that courts will not rewrite agreements to insert provisions parties could have include d or to imply restraints for which they have not bargained.”). In this case, Fort Apache did not allege that it was defrauded or that its agreement was secure d by misrepresentation or deceit. The reservation clause allows no reduction based on Houston Energy’s fractional ownership of the minerals as they relate to the overriding royalty, and Fort Apache’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive.
We hold th e summary judgment evidence established that the parties had a valid contract and that the reservation clause in the agreement is not ambiguous. Issues one and three are overruled. Mistake
In its second issue, Fort Apache asserts the summary judgment evidence raise s issues of material fact on its affirmative defenses that claim the assignment18 should be reformed due to a mistake. According to Fort Apache , the assignment is
not valid , and it is not enforceable because the agreement r esulted from a mistake about the size of the mineral interest that Houston Energy reserved as an overriding royalty interest

. Fort Apache argues that the assignment is unenforceable as written under two types of mistake, mutual mistake and unilateral mist ake. “ A mutual mistake occurs when contracting parties have a common intention, but, due to a mutually

hel d mistake regarding a material fact, the written contract does not accurately reflect that intention. ” Trahan v. Mettlen , 428 S.W.3d 905, 908 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2014, no pet. ) (citing Cherokee Water Co. v. Forderhause , 741 S.W.2d 377, 379 (Tex. 1987) )

. The elements of mutual mistake are a mistake of fact held mutually by the parties, which materially affects the agreed

- up on exchange. City of The Col ony v. N. Tex. Mun. Water Dist. , 272 S.W.3d 699, 735 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2008, pet. dism’d). Claims that both parties made a mistake regarding the terms in a written agreement are often difficult to prove because “‘[a] party who signs a document is
pres umed to know its contents . . . .’” Toler v. Sanders , 371 S.W.3d 477, 482 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (quoting In re Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc. , 257 S.W.3d 228, 232 (Tex. 2007)). To prove a mutual mistake, the evidence must show19 that both of the parties were acting under the same misunderstanding with respect to the same material fact. Walden v. Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc. , 97 S.W.3d 303, 326 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). However, because parties should be able to re ly on the finality of their agreements, the doctrine of mutual mistake is not available to allow one of the parties to avoid the results of an unhappy bargain. Williams v. Glash , 789 S.W.2d 261, 265 (Tex. 1990). In this case, the summary judgment evidence fails to show that Houston Energy was mistaken about the percentage overriding royalty that it intended to retain under the assignment

. The summary judgment evidence also fails to raise a material issue of fact on Fort Apache’s claim of unilateral mistake. With respect to claims of unilateral mistake, courts may allow a party equitable relief if the party that entered into the contract by mistake shows that its mistake is so great that enforcing the contract

wou ld be unconscionable, the mistake is material, the mistake would have been made regardless of the mistaken party’s exercise of ordinary care, and the circumstances are such that the parties can be returned to the status quo. See James T. Taylor & Son, Inc. v. Arlington I ndep. S ch. D ist. , 335 S.W.2d 371, 372

- 73 (Tex. 1960); Monarch Marking S ys. Co. v . Reed’s Photo Mart, Inc. , 485 S.W.2d 905, 906

- 07 (Tex. 1972). “‘A mistake by only one party to an agreement, not known or20 induced by acts of the other party[,] will not constitute grounds for relief.’” Smith

Gilbard v. Perry , 332 S.W.3d 709, 713

- 14 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2011, no pet.) (quoting Johnson v. Snell , 504 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex. 1974)).
In this case, F ort Apache argued that it never intended to agree to an overriding royalty of “ 1.501981% of all oil and gas produced on the Subject Leases.” However, the assignment shows that it did so

. The assignment Fort Apache reached with another entity one week before reaching the agreement with Houston Energy regarding the assignment at issue in this case reflects that Fort Apache knew how to negotiate an overriding royalty of the type that it claims it wanted in the agreement that it made with Houston Energy. Nothing in the summary judgment evid ence shows that Houston Energy, at the time the parties entered into the agreement, knew that Fort Apache was laboring under a mistaken interpretation of the reservation clause, and there is nothing unconscionable about holding Fort Apache to the unambiguo us terms of its written agreement. Finally, the summary judgment evidence does not show that Fort Apache failed to read the agreement or that it exercised reasonable care before doing so based on its interpretation of the overriding royalty provision in th e reservation clause of the assignment

.21 Generally, a unilateral mistake by a part y to a written agreement is not sufficient to avoid the agreement being enforced. See Cigna Ins. Co. of Tex. v . Rubalcada , 960 S.W.2d 408, 412 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.). We conclude th at Fort Apache has not demonstrated that the summary judgment evidence before the trial court raise d material issues of fact on the elements of its claims alleging unilatera l and mutual mistake. I ssue two is overruled

. Affidavit In issue four, Fort Apache argues that the trial court erred in ruling that portions of Bloxsom’s affidavit were inadmissible. W e note that the portions of Blox s om’s affidavit that the trial court ru led inadmissible are not statements that addressed the overriding royalty burden created by other leases, they do not show that Blox s om exercised reasonable care before sign ing the agreement, nor do the y address why enforcing the agreement, as written, is unconscionable. Given that issues one through three were resolved based on the unambiguous language of the contract or on conclusive proof, and that the exclude d portions of Bloxsom’s affidavit d o not address any facts material to these three issues, we hold the trial
court’s rulings, assuming error, did not cause Fort Apache any harm

. See Tex. R. App. P. 4 4. 1 (a)

.22 Conclusion We overrule issues one through four, and we affirm the trial court’s final judgment.
AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on October 30 , 201 4 Opinion Delivered August 27, 2015 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.