### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 95 -C V

______________________________ W. K . H I CK S AN D J. E . H I CK S, A pp e lla nts V. PI L GRI M POUL TRY, G.P., AND PI L GRI M' S PR I DE

CORPOR ATI ON, Appe llees

On Appea l from the 76th J udicial District Court

Camp County , Texas Trial Court No. CV-03- 3959

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Opinion by

J ustice Carte rAt the outset of the tra nsactions, the S t at e co mmissi on was named the Te x as Natural 1 Resource s Conservation Commiss ion. During the prog ress of the dispute, it wa s named the Texas Commi ssion on Environmental Quality

. I n order to avoid confusion, we refe r to this entity as the TCEQ throug hout. 2 O P I N I O N I. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL HISTORY J. E. Hi c ks and

W. K . H ic ks are br oth e rs wh o o wn lan d adjac e nt t o th e Str ub e Eg g F a rm ,

ow ne d a nd op e ra te d b y Pilg ri m Po ult

ry , G .P. , a

nd Pilg ri m' s Pr ide Cor

po ra tio n ( c oll ect ive ly

" Pilg ri m" ) i n Ca

mp C ounty

. F or mor e tha

n se ve n y e ars , the Hi c ks e s c omp la ine d a bo ut the pr ob le ms attendant to having more than a milli on chicke ns next door. I n 1999, afte r having be en fine d by the State commission charg ed with re g ulating the se a ct i v ities for not havinga wa ste permit for the 1 fac ility , Pilgrim applied for a wa ste disposal permit. The pe rmit application reque sted approva l of

a sp ra y me tho d o f w a ste re mov a l. T he Hi c ks e s o bje c ted to th e perm it a nd re qu e ste d a

pu bli c hear ing. Pilgrim soug ht to settle matters with the Hickses, a nd on September 28, 2001, the Hickses and Pilgr im entere d into an agr eeme nt to resolve all curr ent i ssues reg ardingthe pendingapplication fo r pe rm it 0 40 32 (" 20 01 Ag re e me nt" ). Th e 20 01 Ag re e me nt p ro vid e d in e sse nc e that Pil g ri m w ou ld limit disposal of t he chicken waste to a subsurface drip irrig ation proce ss on approximately 70 acr es of land. The ag ree ment made dr ip irrig ation the sole mea ns of disposal, require d that it be authorized by a TCEQ pe rmit, and requir ed Pilgr im to file an amende d application spec ify i n g t h i s m eans of disposal. Pilgrim was to sa mple the water quality on the Hickses' proper ty , and if t h e m o n i t o ri ngThe amended a pplication for pe rmit 04032 was made in January 2002. 2 The 2001 Ag ree ment was incorporated into the 2002 Ag ree ment as if fully set forth, e x cept 3 as expressly

modified by

the 2002 Ag ree ment. The 2002 Ag ree ment expressly modified the 2001 Ag ree ment by

the addition of two para g raphs. (Note that the TNRCC to which refe renc e is made is now known as the TCEQ.) The fir st modification permitted Pilgrim to: land apply , throug h subsurfac e plow irrig ation, proce ss wastewater if suc h wastewater discharg e has be en authoriz ed by TNRCC pursuant to an ame nded application to be fil e d b y PI L G RI M an d s u c h w a s te w a te r h a s b e e n tr e a te d b io lo g ic a ll y to a sufficie nt level to eliminate nuisance o d o rs . For purposes of this ag ree ment 3 showed c ontamination, Pil g rim was to submit a corr ective action plan to the TCEQ. In return, the Hickses a g ree d that afte r the TCEQ issued a d ra ft permit based on the amende d application, they

wo u l d wi t h d ra w their he aringreque st and not file any new or additional hear ing r equests or objections related to the issuance of Permit No. 04032. The drip irr igati o n s y s t em was installed bef ore the issuance of

the per mit and wa s 2 deter mined not to be cost eff

ective. As a re sult, the drip irrig ation sy stem was re moved in Marc h 2002. Pilgrim discover ed anothe r method of wa ste disposal ref err ed to as the plow irr iga

tion method and dete rmined to use that method of w aste disposal. At t h at point, Pi lgr im and the Hickse s reneg otiated the 2001 Ag ree ment, enter ing into a se cond compr omise settlement ag ree ment on Aug ust 6, 2002 ("2002 A g ree ment")

. The 2002 Ag ree ment provided that Pilgr im would pay the Hickse s $750, 0 0 0

. 00; pay $50,000.00 in attorney ' s fee s; crea te an escr ow acc ount of $1,000,000.00 to fund corr ective a ctions reg ardingodor problems; implement measur es for odor control; and comply with the conditions of the 20 01 Ag re e me nt, wh ic h w a s in c or po rate d in to t

he 20 02 Ag re e me nt. 3sufficie nt biologica l treatment shall b e d ef ined as 50 pe rce nt BOD remova l or g re a te r. PI L GR I M a g re e s to ana ly ze w a ste wate r t o b e a

pp lie d o n th e 70 a c re s a t le a st once a wee k for B OD, re cord the results of t h e BO D an aly sis and maintain eac h re c or d f or a t le a st f our y e ars fr om the date of makin g the re c or d. Suc h r e c or ds wi ll be a va ila ble to t he HI CK S fo r r e vie w a

nd c op y inga t th e ir

re qu e st. Th is a c tiv ity

is limit ed to dischar g e by

a sub s u rf

ace plow irrig ation sy stem on approximately 70 acr es as shown in exhibi ts C and D of attachme nt 1. The rate of application shall not exceed ( 1) a maxi mum of 40,000 g allons per a cre per da y and; (2) 500,000 g allons per a cre per y ear . No application shall occur when soils ar e saturate d or frozen. No application shall occ ur on any land from which surfa ce water flow would ente r the pr op e rt y of W.K . H I CK S or

J.E. HI CK S. The sec ond modification per m i t t edP i l gri m t o d i s p o s e o f p ro ce s s wa s t e o r p ro ce s s wa s t ew at er by land application by

using a subsurfac e injection plow or subsurf ace pasture a

pplication sy stem s i m i l ar to the injection plow, on offsite wa ste manag ement units connec ted to Pilgrim lag oons by pipeline, provided c erta in conditions were c omplied with in the manner of suc h disposal. 4 I n return, the Hickses would r elea se all cla ims related to the pe rmit appli cation, the 2001 Ag re e me nt a

nd c on tin g e nt u

po n c e rt if ic a tio n o f s pe c if

ie d a c tio n pr og ra

ms, op e ra tio n o f t he fa c ili ty pr ior to Augus t 6, 20 02 . T he 20 02 Ag re e me nt a lso re qu ir e d the Hi c ks e s to fi le a wr itt e n r e qu e st t o withdraw f

rom the hearing and to withdraw any hear ing r equest filed c oncer ning the permit and a

ny

o b je c ti o n ma d e to th e p e r

mi t. T h e H ic k s e s f

u rth e r a g r e e d to n o t o p p o s e th e in clusion of the subsurfac e plow injection of treated wastew ater as an authorized method of wastew ater manag ement on the 70 on-site ac res at the Strube Eg g Fa rm. On Aug ust 6, 2002, the Hickses withdre w their TCEQ he aringreque st in writing. On Se pte mbe r 5 , 2 00 2, the TCE Q i ssu e d p e rm it 04 03 2 to Pilgri m, a uth or izin g Pilg ri m to uti lize the dr ip i rr ig a tio n me tho d o f w a ste wate r d isp os a l on 70 acres , p e r t he a pp lic a tio n. At

thi s5

time, Pil g rim was alr eady utiliz ing t h e p l o w injection sy stem of waste disposal, after having pr e vio us ly

re mov e d th e dr ip i rr ig a tio n s y ste m. On Oc t o b er

1 9 , 2 0 0 2 , P i l gri m fi l ed a re qu es t wi t h t h e T C E Q t o am en d t h e p er m i tt o ch an ge it t o w hat is kn ow n a s a

re g istratio n ( in l ie u o f a

pe rm it) to i nc re a se the numbe r of bir ds a t th e fa c ili ty by 138,715, to add 484 ac res of on-site land appli ca t i o n , t o ad d 1,023 acr es of of f-site land application, to make the use of tre ated wa stewate r optional rathe r than mandatory , and to employ the subsurfac e injection plow mea ns of waste disposal on the same 70-a cre trac t previousl y approve d for the dr ip irrig ation method. A notice of the re quest to amend Permit No. 04032 wa s publ i shed in the newspa

per, a nd it was from this publication that the Hickse s learne d that it had been f iled. On J une 19, 2003, the Hickses wrote a letter to the TC EQ. The letter trac ed the history of the dispute betwe en the pa rties and a dvised the C ommissi on of the 2002 Ag ree ment. The Hic kses challeng ed seve ral items in the application, including the r equeste d authorizatio n t o incre ase the number of bir ds at the f

ac i lity , the optional use of wa stewate r trea tment, additional on-site land application, the disposa l of wa ste other than w astewater, a nd the conve rsion of the pe rmit to a reg istration. The Hickse s also reque sted a c ontested ca se hea ring

. P i l gri m claims this letter brea ched the 2002 Ag ree ment. On September 2 5 , 2 0 03, the Hickse s filed a motion to overturn the T CEQ' s executive direc tor' s decision to g rant re g istration. Although the motion to overturn does include a r ecitation of the history

of t he problems betwee n the Hickses and P ilgr im, the obj ection is primarily based onOn e of the c la ime d e rr or s o f t

he c omm iss ion e r i s th a t th e re g ist ratio n a uth or ize d Pi lg ri m to 4 dispose of wa ste on land mana g ement units identified in t h e ap p l ication. The a ctual re g istration issued provides that the 451.25 a cre s of on-site land a nd the 1,023.43 acr es of off- site land may be u s edfo r d i s p o s al o f w as t e i nad d i t i o nt o wa s t ew at er . 1 6 1

. 6 6 ac re s o f t h e a d d i t i o n al o ff -s i t e a cr ea ge are included in the Hickse s' water shed. The petition se eks to ha

ve the court de clar e that the Hic kses bre ache d the 2002 Ag ree ment 5 in writing the J une 19, 2003, letter to the TCEQ; it does not menti o n t h e motion to overturn or a subsequent letter

wri t t en by

the Hickse s on J une 17, 2006, which Pilg rim now claims also bre ach the 2002 Ag ree ment. The motion to overturn a n d t he 2006 letter wer e introduce d at trial without o b je c ti o n , an d

th e H ic k s e s d o n o t c la im w a iv e r o f th e s e a d d it io n a l a ll e g a ti o ns of bre a c h

. We the re fo re c on sid e r e a c h of the do c ume nts c la ime d by Pilg ri m to have br e a c he d the 20 02 Ag re e me nt. 6 alleg ed noncomplianc e with leg al technic alities in gr anting the re g istration. Pilgrim claims that the 4 fi lin g of thi s mo tio n c on sti tut e s a br e a c h o f t

he 20 02 a g re e me nt. On Novembe r 22, 2003, Pilgrim filed a lawsuit for de clar atory

judgme nt, asking t h e cour t to declar e that the Hic kses b reache d the 2002 ag ree ment. The Hic kses answe red, de ny ing a ny 5 br e a c h o n th e i r p art ; t h e y a l s o f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m f

o r d e c l ar a t o r

y j u d g m e n t , a s k i n g t h e c o u rt to d ec l ar e t h at P i l gri m h adco m m i t t edt h e f i rs tm at er i al b re ac h o f t h e 2 0 0 2 Agr ee m en tt h ro u gh numerous diffe rent a ct i o n s and asse rting that Pilgrim was ba rre d from pursuing relief from any subsequent bre ach. On J une 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , th e H ic k s e s w r o te a le tt e r a d dr e s s e d

to th e ir " n e ig hb o r s . " T h e le tt er ref ere nces complaints from y ear s prior to 2002 and enclose s information to help monitor odors from the Str ub e fa c ili ty . Pi lg ri m c la ims that th is l e tte r a lso c on sti tut e s a br e a c h o f t

he 20 02 a g re e me nt. The Hic kses fi l ed a m otion for summary judgme nt based on the c laim that the 2002 Ag re e me nt w a s unambi g uo us and re qu e ste d the c ourt to d e te rm ine a s a

ma tte r o f l aw w hic h p a rt y7

brea ch ed t h e agre ement and w hen any such bre ach oc curr ed. The court de nied the motion for summary judgme nt a

nd g rante d the Hickses' motion in limine to exclude any parol, extrinsi c, or ora l evidenc e that contr adicted the ag ree ment. The c ase w as tried to a jur y in Camp County

over a p er i o d of four

day s. The trial c ourt ins tr uc te d th e jur

y that: I t is y o u r d

u t y t o i n t e r

p r e t t h e l an g u a g e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t

. Y o u m u s t d e c ide its me anin g by de te rm ini ng the int e nt of the pa rt ie s a t the tim e of t he ag re e me nt. Con sid e r al l of the fa c ts an d cir c ums tanc e s sur ro un din g the makin g of

the a g re e me nt, the i n t erpr etation place d on the ag ree ment by the par ties, and the c onduct of the pa rt ie s. Th e tr ia l c ourt a lso su

bmi tte d to the jur

y the qu e sti on of

wh e the r t he Hi c ks e s and

/or Pilg ri m failed to c omply

with the ag ree ment. The jury deter mined that the Hickse s failed to comply with the ag ree ment and that Pilgr im did not, and returned a verdic t in Pilgrim' s favor for $750,000.00. The Hickses' motion for judgme nt notwithst anding the ver dict and mot ion for new trial we re both de nied. The fina l judgment include d the awa rd to Pilgrim for $750,000.00 in damag es for the bre ach of

the

a g re e me nt, $1 74 ,0 00 .0 0 in pr e jud g me nt i nte re st, $1 48 ,0 00 .0 0 in a tto rn e y ' s f

e e s and $4 ,3 22 .1 2 in

c ourt c os ts, the se be ari ngint e re st at 5% pe r a nnum. II. ISSU ES P RE SEN TED On a pp e a l, t he Hi c ks e s p re se nt u s w iththe fo llo wi ngiss ue s: (1) Whether

the trial cour

t erre d in deleg ating to t h e jury the role of

interpre ting the 2002 Ag re e me nt;8

(2) Whether

the trial cour

t erre d in failing to rule as a matter of law on the issue of bre ach by the Hi c ks e s; (3) Whether

there is leg ally

sufficie nt evidence to support the jury ' s answer to Question No. 1 (i.e., that the H ickses bre ache d the settlement ag ree ment); (4 ) W h et h er

t h e t ri al co u rt erre d

i nfa i l i n g t o ru l e a s a m at t er o f l aw o n t h e i s s u e o f P i l gri m 's a lle g e d b re a c h o f t

he se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt; (5) Whether

the jury ' s answe r to Q uestion No. 2 (i.e., a sking w hether Pilgrim brea ched the settlement ag ree ment) is ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e; (6) Whether

the trial court err ed in failing to rule as a matter of l aw that Pilgrim brea ched the se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt f

ir st a nd that th e se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt w a s une nf or c e a ble a s to th e Hi c ks e s; and (7) Whether

the trial court err ed in submitting an improper definition to the jury , instructing the m th a t it

wa s th e ir du ty to i nte rp re t th e se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt. III . AN AL YSI S Th e Hi c ks e s' a

pp e llate po int s b a sic a lly

c e nte r o n th e iss ue of

the tr ia l c ourt ' s d e c isi on to submit what the Hickses c ontend is an unambig uous contrac t to the jury for inter pretation and in the failure of the trial c ourt to de termine the issue of brea ch as a matter of law. The Hickses posit that this s h o u ld have be en done be cause (1) the c ontrac t was unambig uous and (2) the fa cts on which both parties rely to asser

t a breac h of t he agr eeme nt are not in dispute. Be cause the question of the Hi c ks e s' br e a c h w a s a

qu e sti on of law f or the c ourt , the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in su bmi tti ngthat is su e to the jury . Fur

ther, this err or was not harmless because the evidence was leg ally insufficient to show a bre ach by

the Hickse s. We rever se and r ender judgme nt in favor of

the Hickse s.9

A . T h e T r i a l C o u r t E r r e d i n D e l e g a t i n g t o t h e J u r y t h e R o l e o f I n t e r p r e t i n g th e 20 02 Ag r e e m e nt Th e d e t e r m i n a t i o no f

w h e t h e r a c o n t r a c ti s a mb i g u o u s i s a q u e s t i o no f l aw f o r t h e c o u rtto decide by examining the contr act as a whole in lig ht of the circ umstances pr esent whe n the contra ct

was e ntere d. Universal Health Servs. v. Re naissance W omens Group , 1 2 1 S. W. 3 d 7 4 2 , 7 4 6 ( T e x. 2003). I f contra ct lang uag e can be g iven a cer tain or definite meaning , then it is not ambiguous and should be interpre ted by the cour t as a matter

of law. DeW

itt County Elec . Coop. v. Parks , 1 S.W .3d 96, 100 (Tex. 1999). On the other hand, a contra ct is ambiguous whe n it is sus ceptible to more than

o n e re as o n ab l e int erpr etation. Fr os t Na t'l B an k v . L &F D ist

rib s. , 1 6 5 S

. W

. 3 d

3 1 0 , 3 1 2 ( T e x. 2005). L ack of

clar ity does not cre ate a

n ambig uity , and "not ever y differ ence in the interpre tation of a con tr act

. . . am ou nt s t o am bi guit y ." Forbau v. Ae tna Lif e Ins. Co. , 8 7 6 S. W. 2 d

1 3 2 , 1 3 4 ( T e x. 1994). Whether a contra ct is a mbiguous is a question of law, subjec t to de novo revie w. Bowden v. Phillips Petroleum Co. , 24 7 S.W. 3d 69 0, 70 5 (T e x. 20 08 ); Heritage Re s., Inc. v . Nationsbank , 939 S.W .2d 118, 121 (Tex. 1996). Her e, the tria l court made no attempt to expli citly resolve the question of whethe r the c ontrac t

was ambiguous. Bef

ore trial, the court gr anted the H ickses' motion in l imine conce rning the issue of the a dmission of ex tr i n s i c o r par ole evidenc e or state ments reg ardingthe " parties' intentions

a dmi tted so a s to va

ry or c on tr a dic t or

wh ic h te nd

to v ary or c on tr a dic t th e te rm s o f t he pa rt ie s'
contra ctual ag ree ments that are the s ubject of this cause ." F urther, thr oug hout the trial, the trial cour t sustained objections to attempts to inter pret the contra ct on eig ht differ ent occ asions. Howeve r, theI ntere stingly , neither of the par ties pled that the agr eeme nt was ambiguous, but both depe nd 6 on the lang uag e of the settlement ag ree ment for their relief

. 10 tr ia l c ourt the n f ound that the Hi c ks e s had " op e ne d the do or " and the re a ft e r a llo we d te sti mony (t o

a c e rt a in e xten t) re g ard ingint e rp re ta tio n o f t he a g re e me nt. I n the c ir c ums tanc e tha

t a tr ia l c ourt

fa ils to m a ke the de te rm inatio n w he the r a mbi g uit y in

a c on tr a c t e xists , th is Court may de te rm ine a mbi guit y a s a matt e r o f l aw f

or the fi rs t ti me on

a pp e a l. Royal Mac cabee

s Lif e Ins. Co. v. J

ames , 146 S.W .3d 340, 347 (Tex. 2004). I t is also likely that the trial court, by sending the interpre tation of the contra ct to the jury , implicitl y held that the contr act

was ambiguous. See Thomas v . Long , 207 S.W .3d 334, 339

– 4 0 (Tex. 2006) (holding court of

a pp e a ls w a s c or

re c t to c on sid e r ap pe a l of tri a l cou rt ' s impli c it ru lin g ). As su min g the tr ia l c ourt did make a n implicit findi ng of ambig uity , o n d e novo revie w, this Court may rede termine that issue. See Qu ic k

v . Ci ty of A us tin , 7 S.W .3d 109, 116 (Tex. 1998). Pilgrim claims that t he agr eeme nt is ambig uous and that the t rial court was ther efor e cor rec t in having submitt ed the issue of brea ch to the jury

. Pilgrim points to two separ ate a rea s of claimed 6 ambig uity

. First, Pilgrim claims that para g raph 2.4 of the 2002 Ag ree ment is ambiguous. Par ag raph 2. 4 p ro vid e s: F or and in c on sid e ratio n of

the mut ua l c ov e na

nts re c ite d h e re in, HI CK S, the ir a g e nts , a ssi g ns , and

/or le g a l r e pr e se ntativ e s, re le a se and fo re ve r d isc ha

rg e PI L GR I M, the ir a g e nts , e mpl oy e e s, of

fi c e rs , d ir e c tor s, sh a

re ho lde rs , s uc c e sso r e nti tie s, su bs idi ari e s, pare n t corpor ations, sister corpor ations, or re lated entities, and/or le g al repr esentatives of and from any claims, liabiliti es, dama g es or c onsequenc es re lated to the Permit application, the Settlement Ag ree ment, and subjec t to the conditions set forth below, the operation of the fac ility prior to the sig ning of this Com promise and11

Settlement Ag ree ment. The re lease of liability for ope ration of the Fa cility is subject to and conting ent upon PI L GRI M implementing a ll corre ctive ac tions required by the Settlement Ag ree ment, and HI CKS rece iving the r eport a nd cer t i fi ca t i o n for e ach corr ective a ction prog ram pursua nt to Section 2.9 of this Co mp r o mi se and Settlement Ag re e me nt c e rt if

y ingthat the g oa l of the c or re c tiv e a c tio n p ro g ra

m a s d e sc ri be d in the Se ttl e me nt Ag re e me nt ha s b e e n a c hie ve d a nd that th e e nv ir on me nta l im pa c ts t o the HI CKS property

from PI L GRI M' S operation have been f u l l y ad dresse d and corr ecte d pursuant to all applica ble environme ntal laws, re g ulations, standards and c ri te ri a of the State of

Te xas. Whil e pa ra g ra ph2. 4 d oe s n ot s pe c if

ic a lly state that th e Hi c ks e s c o u l d no t th e re a ft e r c omp la in

a bo ut e ve nts tha

t oc c ur re d o n th e Str

ub e Eg g F arm

pr ior to the sig nin g of

the 20 02 Ag re e me nt, Pilgrim insists t hat par ag raph 2.4 should be interpre ted to inc lude that prohibition. This parag raph contains g ener al re lease lang uag e re g ul ar l y fo u n d in settlement ag ree ments. I t does not support Pilgrim' s asser

tion that the Hickses could never ag ain complain about eve nts occurr ing a t the Strube fac ility befor e August 6, 2002. Parag raph 2.4 pla inly and unambig uously

states that the Hickse s

re le a se a ll ( 1) c la ims ; ( 2) lia bil iti e s; a nd (3 ) d a ma g e s o r c on se qu e nc e s re la te d to the pe rm it appl ic a ti o n , th e 2 0 0 1 A g r e e me n t an d th e o p e r ati o n o f th e f a c il it y p r io r to s ig n in g th e 2002 Ag re e me nt. A g e ne ra l, c a te g or ic a l r e le a se c la us e mus t be c on str

ue d n arr ow ly . Boales v. Brighten Builders, Inc ., 29 S.W .3d 159, 167 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) . Moreove r, be c a us e t h i s l an g u a g e c an b e g i v e n a c e rt a i n an d d e f i n i t e m e a n i n g , i t is n ot a mbi g uo us . Parks , 1 S.W .3d at 100. Pil g r im ' s s e c o n d

ar e a o f c la im e d a mb igu it y is b a s e d o nth e p r e mi s e th a t t

h e d ecla ratory judgme nt action ac tually involved two separ ate c ontrac ts. Pi lgrim relies on Pr og re ssi v e Cou ntyPa r a g r a p h 2

. 1 1 o f th e 2 0 0 2 A g r e e me n t p r o v id e s : " PI L G RI M a g r e e s to c o mp ly with the 7 te rm s and c on dit ion s of the Se pte mbe r 28 , 20 01 Se ttl e me nt A g re e me nt, wh ic h is inc or po rate d h e re in as if fully set forth, e x cept a s expressly modified by

this Agr eeme nt." Counsel for Pilgr im points out that both documents were introduced at trial in support of the 8 contention t h at t h i s ca s e involves the interpr etation of two sepa rate documents. Inasmuch a s the lang uag e of the 2001 Ag ree ment was e x pressly incorporated into the 2002 Ag ree ment, this arg ument does not support Pilgrim' s position. 12 Mutual Insurance Co. v . Kelley , 284 S.W .3d 805 (Tex. 2009), in support of this proposition. I n that

case , Prog ressive insure d five ve hicles for the Kelle y fa m i l y . Four

vehicles w ere listed on a twopag e docume nt, and the fifth wa s l isted on a sepa rate two-pag e docume nt. Howeve r, the two documents had se parate policy numbers. Id. a t 80 6. Whe n K e lle y wa s in jur e d in an a uto mob ile

acc ident, Prog ressive pa id the policy limit s. Kelley

then made a

claim under

an allege d second po lic y to r e c ov e r a dd iti on a l f

un ds

. Id. Whil e the tw o d oc ume nts had separ a te po lic y numbe rs , Prog ressive de nied th er e wa s a second policy and re fused to make any additional pay

ments. The court de termined that, given the exis tence of t wo documents, there was a latent ambig uity

as to the intent of the par

ties, i.e., whethe r there was one or two insuranc e policies. Id. at 807. Th is c a se c an b e dis tin g uis he d f ro m Kelleybe c a

us e he re , th e 20 01 Ag re e me nt w a s e xpre ssl y inco r p o r a te d in to th e 2 0 0 2 A g r e e me n t. A lt h o u g h th e 2 0 0 2 A g r e e me n t s u p e r s e d e d the 2001 7 Ag ree ment, it specifica lly incorporated its terms and provisions. Thus, this c ase cente rs only on the 20 02 Ag re e me nt. Th is case i s f ur the r d ist inguis he d f

ro m Kelleybe c a

us e the la te nt a

mbi g uit y in 8 Kelleyhad to do with the very issue of whether there was one or two policie s. The re solution of that issue was outcome -dete rminative. The a mbiguity was identified, a

nd the jury

simply was c harg edTh e wi tne ss te sti mony re la tiv e to the a g re e me nt i s c e nte re d o n ( 1) wh a t th e a g re e me nt s a id 9 and (2) what ac tions were a lleg ed to be a violation of the ag ree ment. Even so, the pa

rties' interpre tations of the contra ct ar e n o t relevant if the mea ning of the 10 contra ct is plain from its fac e. G TE M o b il n e t v

. Te le c e ll

Ce llular , 9 5 5 S. W. 2 d

2 8 6 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, writ denied) . An amb i gu i t y d o es not exist simply beca use the parties diff

er in their inter

pretations of the contra ct lang uag e. In re D. W ilson Cons tr. Co. , 196 S.W .3d 774 (Tex. 2006). 13 to deci d e w h ic h in te r

p r e tati o n w a s c o r

r e c t, in li g h t o f th e p arti e s ' in te n t. H e r e , th e r e is n o such

ou tc ome -d e te rm inativ e fa c tor ba se d o n th e qu e sti on

of wh e the r there are one or tw o a g re e me nts

. Moreove r, havingrelied on Kelleyfor the pr oposition t hat laten t am b i guity exis ts in thi s case , Pilg ri m f a ils to a rt ic ula te wh a t th a t ambi g uit

y mig ht b e , a

nd ho w it ari se s a s a

re su lt o f t wo se pa rate agr ee m ents. Pilgrim simply argues that the 2001 Ag ree ment and the 2002 Ag ree ment wer e susceptible to m o r e th a

n o n e r e a s o n a

b le in te r p r e ta tion, as demonstrated by

the var y ing inter pretations testified to by

the witnesses at trial. Pilgrim fails t o point to any specific lang uag e in t he ag ree ment 9

a bo ut w hic h th e me anin g is s ub je c t to tw o d if

fe re nt, reason abl e in te rp re ta tio ns ; no r d oe s Pil g ri m po int to a ny sp e c if ic tr ia l te sti mony hig hli g hti ng any pa rt of the a g re e me nt a lle g e d to be a mbi g uo us . 10 Be cause the lang uag e of the ag ree ment can be g iven a c erta in and d ef i n i t e mea ning, it is not ambig uous. A cc o rd i n gl y , the trial cour t erre d in deleg ating to the jury the role of

interpre ting the

a g re e me nt. See Parks , 1 S.W .3d at 100.14

B. The Trial Court Erred i n Fa i l ing to Rule as a Matte r of Law on the Issue of Breac h by th e Hickses Havingdeter

m i n ed the ag ree ment to be unambig uous, we turn to the issue of whether the court should have proper ly d ec i d ed wh et h er the Hickses' conduct amounted to a bre ach of the ag ree ment. Courts have c onsisten t l y h el d that in the event ther e is an unambiguous c ontrac t and there is no dispute as to the fac ts that may constitute a bre ach, it is er ro r t o submit t he ca se to the jury

. Su lli v an v . B ar

ne tt , 4 71 S.W. 2d

39 , 4 4 ( Te x. 19 71 ); Indian Beac h Prop. Owners' Ass' n v. Linden , 222 S.W .3d 682, 705 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Only when ther e ar e disputed issues conce rning the fa cts of bre ach should the que stion be submitt ed to a jury

. Briargrove Shopping Ctr. v. Vilar , 647 S.W .2d 329, 333 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no writ). When the evidenc e is undisputed reg ardinga per son' s conduct under a contra ct, the cour t must determine whet h er s u ch conduc t amounts to a brea ch of that contrac t. Laf ar ge Cor p. v . W olf f , 977 S.W .2d 18 1, 18 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 98 , p et. d e nie d) ; Mee k v. B ishop , 9 1 9 S. W. 2 d 8 0 5 , 8 0 8 ( T e x. App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 1996, writ denied) (cour t determines wha

t conduct i s require d by parties, a nd, insofar a s a dispute exist s conce rning failure of a pa rty to perfor m the contra ct, cour

t submits di sputed fac t question to jury). I n the ca se at ba

r, P ilgr im claims three instances of brea ch by the Hickse s. The conduc t on the par t of the Hickses claimed by Pilgrim to have amounted to brea ch wa s the draf ting a nd mailingTh e fi rs t is a le tte r wr itt e n to t he TCE Q b y

the Hi c ks e s d a te d Jun e 19 , 2 00 3; t he se c on d is 11 a motion by

the Hickse s to overturn the TCEQ' s executive direc tor' s decision to g rant re g istration; and the third is a letter

written to " neig hbors" by the Hickse s dated June 17, 2006. 15 of two letters a

nd one leg al document. There is no evidenc e in t he re cord of any dispute reg arding 11 the identity

of the party who draf

ted these doc uments, what the c ontents of the docume nts were , or wh e the r t he do c ume nts we re , in fa c t, tr ans mit te d by the Hi c ks e s. Th e on ly dis pu te re g ard ingthe se documents wa s whether

any of them const i t u t e a br eac h of the a g ree ment. Other tha n these thre e documents, Pilgrim alleg es no other instanc es of brea ch by the Hickses. This is a classic illustration of the total lac k of dispute as to t he fa cts that are claimed to constitute a br eac h. I n such a situation, it is err or t o submit the i ssue of brea ch to the jury

. Laf ar ge Cor p ., 977 S.W .2d at 186. The issue of the Hickse s' brea ch wa s a question for the trial court to dec ide as a matter of la

w. Id. C. No Evidence to Supp ort Jury F ind ing of Breac h by th e Hickses A trial cour

t commits err or i f i t submits a question of l aw to the j ury , as was done here. See Knutson v. Ripson , 16 3 Te x. 31 2, 35 4 S. W.2 d 5 75 , 5 76 (1 96 2) ; Hudson Buick, Pontiac, GMC Truck Co. v. Gooch , 7

S.W .3d 191, 195 (Tex. App

. — T y l er 1 999, pet. denied) . Absent a showingof

e xtra ne ou s p re jud ic e , howe ver, s ub mis sio n o f a qu e sti on of law t o th e jur

y is g e ne ra lly

ha rm le ss since no ha

rm results if the question is a nswere d as the trial court should ha ve answe red it, or

it can be dee med immaterial a

nd disreg arde d by

the trial cour

t if an s we re d incorre ctly . T EX . R. A PP . P. 44 .1 (a )( 1) ; Spence r v. Eagle Star Ins. Co. , 876 S.W .2d 154, 157 (Tex. 1994). Ext rane ous prejudice exis ts when the a

nswer g iven by

the jury is incorre ct as a

matter of la

w.Th e mot ion c la ims tha

t th e e xec uti ve dir e c tor

of the TCEQ erred

a s a ma tte r o f l a w i n 12 g ranting the re g istration beca use the a pplicant fa iled to comply wi t h t h e commission rules conce rning cer

tification of the a

pplication; erre d as a matter of law in conver

ting t h e p er m i t t o a reg istrati o n ; an d er red as a matter of law in a

uthorizi ng Pilgrim to dispose of waste on land manag ement units identified in the application. 16 The que stion, then, is whether the jury answe red the question as the trial c ourt would have been r equire d to answer

it. Linden , 2 22 S.W. 3d

a t 70 5; Gooch , 7 S.W. 3d a t 19 5. Th is e ff

e c tiv e ly requi r e s a r e v ie w o f th e ju r y ' s an s w e r u n d e r a le g a l s u f f ic ie n c y o r n o - e v id e n c e s ta n d ard. See Un iv e rsa l He alt

h S e rv s. , 121 S.W .3d 742. I f there is no evidenc e to support the jury ' s answer , the trial court c ould not have rule d as the jury did. I n conducting a n o -e v i d en ce or leg al suffic iency

re vie w, thi s Co ur

t a pp lie s th e tr a dit ion a l no -e vid e nc e sta nd ard

. Ev ide nc e is le g a lly ins uf fi c ie nt o nly when ( a) the re is a c omplete abse nce of evidenc e of a vit al fact, (b) the c ourt is barre d by rules of la

w

or of evidenc e fr om givingweig ht to the only evidenc e off

ere d to prove a

vital fac t, (c) the evidenc e offe red to prove a vital fa ct is no more than a mere scintilla, or (d) the e vi d ence establishes

c o n c lu s iv e ly th e o p p o s it e o f th e v it a l f a ct. C i t y o f K ell er v. W ilson , 1 6 8 S. W. 3 d

8 0 2 , 8 1 0 ( T e x. 20 05 ); Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez , 977 S.W .2d 328, 334 (Tex. 1998). Pilgrim claims t he Hickses brea ched the ag ree ment when they filed the motion to overturn with the TCEQ on September 25, 2003, and fur ther a lleg es that the Hick ses re lied on a litany of 12 actions by Pilgrim that occur

red befor e the execution of the 2002 Ag ree ment in an ef fort to convince the TCEQ that Pilgrim' s reg istration f or the Strube fac ility should be revoke d. Pilgrim points to a list of ten bulleted fac ts complained of in the motion, six of which occur red befor e Aug ust 6, 2002.17

The six complaints of pre- exis ting matter s are specific ally said to be the a g ents of alleg ed bre ach, as they are claimed to be conduct in direct violation of the Hic kses' obligations under par ag raph 2.4 of the a g ree ment. As pr e vio us ly

dis c us se d, pa

ra g ra ph 2. 4 cle arl y and

un a mbi g uo us ly

re qu ir e d th e Hi c ks e s to

re le a se a ll c la ims a g a ins t Pil g ri m a s of Au g us t 6, 2002

. Th is re le a se is a surr e nd e r o f e xistin g ri g hts ; it does not impose upon the Hickses an oblig ation to there afte r never complain of events occur ring

a t th e Str ub e fa c ili ty

pr ior to Augus t 6, 2002 . T he pa rt ie s to the a g re e me nt n e g oti a te d it s te rm s. Bo t h p ar t i es ar e s o p h i s t i ca t ed , an d al t h o u gh t h e a gre em en tco u l d h av e e a s i l y

i n cl u d edl an gu age which would h ave imposed upon the Hickses a n obligation not to complain about past events at Strube, no such languag e wa s included. C ourts are not fre e to rew rite agr eeme nts to insert provisions that parties c ould have include d or to imply restra ints for which they have not barg ained. Tenneco Inc. v . Enterprise Prods. Co. , 925 S.W .2d 640, 646 (Tex. 1996). Moreove r, the Hic kses wer e entitled under the ag ree ment to obje ct and se ek to over turn the reg istration. Under pa

rag raph 2 of

the 2001 Ag reem en t (w h ich was inc orporated into the 2002 Ag ree ment), the Hic kses spec ifically reta ined the right t o file such items as the motion to overturn. Th e langua g e he re pr ov ide s th a t: Eac h Protestant ag ree s not to file any new or additional hear ing r equest or obje ction related to the issuance of a Permit ba sed on Pilgrim' s amende d application proposing the waste water

manag ement sy stem using tre atm en t an d subsurfac e drip irr iga tion descr ibed in A ttachment 1. This ag ree ment does not, howeve r, pre vent a Protestant from 1) filing complaints to actions under the Permit 2) filing complaints to actions in vi ol ation o f t

he Pe rm it o r 3 ) f

ili nghe ari ngre qu e sts , o bje c tio ns or c omp la int sThe Hickses argue that a reg istration issued by the TCEQ is subject to less oversig ht than 13 a ce rtification. 18 related to any

future a pplication by

Pilgrim f o r r e n ewa l, amendment, or othe r re vision to the Permit or to any

other a uthorization. Th e thi rd pr ov isi on of thi s p ara g ra

pha uth or ize d th e Hi c ks e s' ob

je c tio n to the re vis ion of

the pe rm it. Per the 2002 Ag ree ment, the H ickses withdre w their re quest for a hear ing be fore the TCEQ on Aug ust 6, 2002, allowing Permit No. 04032 to be issued on September 5, 2002. I n October 2002, Pilgrim sough t t o amend Per mit No. 04032 and conver t it to a reg istration. The Hickse s did not object to the per

mit which had alre ady

been issued, but we re obje cting to the application for a major amendment to the permit and to the re quest to transfor m the permit into a reg istration. Opposition 13 to the re g istratio n an d maj or a me ndme nt o f t

he pe rm it d oe s n ot e qu a te to o pp os iti on to t he pe rm it as desc ribed in the settlement a g ree ment. The H ic k s e s ' Ju n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , le tt e r to " n e ig hb o r s " is a ls o c la im e d to b e a v io lati o n o f the ag ree ment

. T h is arg ument is based on the pr emise that the letter ref ere nces c omplaints reg arding the St ru be fa c ili ty

fr om a s e arl y

a s 1 99 9, we ll b e fo re the sig nin g of the 20 02 Ag re e me nt. Pilg ri m fu rt he r c on te nd s th a t th is l e tte r w a s an att emp t to us e e ve nts oc c ur ri ngbe fo re Au g us t 6, 20 02 , to inf lue nc e c omm

un ity me mbe rs to c omp la in a bo ut t he Str ub e fa c ili ty

and to c re a te a dv e rs e conseque nces f

or Pilgrim. This is c laimed to be an attempt to circ umvent the 2002 Ag ree ment by enlisting surr og ates to make complaints to the TC EQ when the Hickses were contra ctually barr ed from makingthose complaints. The fa llacy of this argument, as pre v i o u s l y d iscussed, is that theS av e an d ex ce p t an y co mp l ai n t s re l at i n g t o "t h e is s u an ce o f a Pe rm i tb a s e d o n P i l gri m 's 14 amende d application proposingthe waste water manag ement sy stem using tre atment and subsurf ace dri p i rri gati on des cri bedin At tac hm ent 1. " 19 Hickses wer e not c ontrac tually barr ed from making complaints to the TCEQ of t h e n at u re they fi le d. F ur

the r, we no te that the June 17 , 20 06 , le tte r wa s se nt a pp ro xima te ly 93 9 da

y s a ft e r P ilg ri m 14 filed its lawsuit. Bec ause this letter w as written well afte r suit wa s filed, it could not have f ormed the basis of the br eac h of contra ct claim and w as not the g enesis of this suit. Pilgrim' s final claim of br eac h is based on the J une 19, 2003, letter to the TCEQ. This letter makes re fer ence to a ctivities that oc curr ed at the Strube fac ility prior to the 2002 Ag ree ment and as

a re sult, is allege d by

Pilgrim to violate para g raph 2.4 of the ag ree ment. Fo r t h e re asons stated above, w e find no such violation, and further find that (as is the ca se with the motion to overturn and the 2006 letter) the Hic k s es we re en titled to write this letter pursuant to para g raph 2 of the ag ree ment, quoted at leng th here in. IV . CO NC LU SION Be cause the jury ' s determination that the Hic kses fa iled to comply with the ag ree ment is not supported by leg ally sufficie nt evidenc e, it there fore cannot c omport with the answer that the trial
court wa s obligated to g ive. The e rror in submit ting Que stion No.1 to the jury was, ther efor e, harmful ba sed o n t he unsupported a nswer of the jury and the r esulting judg ment. Be cause we20

reve rse the judgm en t o f t h e trial c ourt and re nder judg ment in favor of the Hickse s, we do not

a dd re ss t he re ma ini ngiss ue s, a s th e y are moo t.

J ack Ca

rter J ustice Date Submitted: September 23, 2009 Date D ecide d: October 20, 2009