NO. 07-08 -038 7-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER30, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ THE B EVER LYF OU ND ATION , Appel lan t

v. W . W . LY NC H, SAN M AR IN O, L. P . and SOF AM CO , I NC ., Appel lee s

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; TH NO. 58, 074 -A; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. T he Be v erly

Found ation ( a n o n-prof it corporat ion) app eals f rom a summ ary judgme nt de nying it recovery against W
. W . Lynch (Ly nch), Sa n Marino, L. P. (San Marino), and So famco, Inc . ( Sofa m co ). T h e di sput e c oncer ns a pur por ted o il and g as dr il li ng v enture from w hic h Bev er ly w as ex cl uded, cont ra ry to an al leg ed oral ag re ement. Per the oral a gre e m e n t, Sofamco w as to c onv ey to ita 1/ 8 wor ki ng i nteresti n the oi l and g as lea ses the v enture ac q uired. Bev er ly ev entual ly

sued the aforement ion ed par ti es for fraud ,W e ta k e th is tim e to n o te th a t th e o r ig in a l p e tit io n a n d B e v e r ly’s m o tio n f o rp a r tia l s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t 1 w e re fi l e d b y J o e B . A b b e y . T h e l a tte r a p p e a rs to b e a l i c e n s e d a tto rn e ya n d o n e o f B e v e rly ’ s th re e “tru s te e s .” So t oo d oe s i t a pp ea rt ha t h e wa s i ns t r um en t al i n t he cr ea t i on of t he n on - pr of i t c or po r at i on . Non et he l es s, we under st and t hat he and t he cor por at i on hav e di st i nct l egal i dent i t i es. T hat i s, he i s nott he co r por at i on, and th e c o rp o ra ti o n i s n o t h i m . S e e H o ffm a n n v . D a n d u ra n d , 180 S. W
. 3d 340, 347 ( T ex. App. –D al l as 20 05, no pe t
. ) ( no t i ng t ha t a c orp ora t i on i s a s ep ara t e l eg al en t i t y from i t s ow ne rs or s ha reh ol de rs). Yet, A bb ey ap pe ars t o use t he two di st i nct i dent i t i es i nt er change abl yt hr ougho ut t he pl eadi ngs and m ot i ons he f i l ed on be hal fof B e v e rly
. D e s p ite t h is , w e w ill a b i d e b yth e l a w re c o g n i zi n g th a t a c o rp o ra ti o n i s a n e n ti tyd i s ti n c t fro m i ts c re a to rs o r s h a re h o l d e rs , S c h l u e te r v . C a re y, 11 2 S
. W
. 3d 16 4, 16 9 (T ex . A pp . –F ort W ort h 2 00 3, pe t
. de ni ed ), a n d m a i n ta i n th e d i s ti n c ti o n b e tw e e n th e tw o . 2 breache d fiduc iar

y d u ty, a n d c onspi ra cy . As reli ef, itso ug ht a cons tr uct iv e tr ust , 1 ex emplar

y damag es, and attor ney ’s fees. Thereafter, eac h of the d e fe n d a nts fil ed t ra d it io n a l o r n o e vid e n c e m o t io n s fo r s u m m a ry j u d gm e n t
. Be ve rl y re s p o n d e d wit h it s o wn moti on for par

ti al summar

y j u d gm e nt. The tr ial co urt g ra nted thos e of the defendants w it hout spec ify ing the g ro unds upon w hic h it acted and de nie d tha t of Bev er ly
. The la tter no w a tt ac k s t he j ud g me ntv i a fou r i s s ue s . W e ov er r ul e ea c h an d affi r m. Sum mar y Ju dgmen t Fo r S an Ma rin o and L ynch W e s tar t our rev iew by address ing the demand for a cons tr uct iv e tr ust
. The la tter is a form of eq uit abl e reli ef. Gi nther v. T aub, 675 S.W .2d 724, 728 ( Tex . 198 4)
. It is not an independ ent caus e of acti on, how ev er , but rather a re medy
. In re Esta te of Arrende ll, 213 S. W .3d 496, 504 (Tex
. App.–Texar kana 2006, no pet.)
. Beca use it is a re medy , one seek ing i t f irst must hav e a caus e of acti on war ra nti ng i ts impos it ion
. Tr oxel v. Bi shop, 201 S.W .3d 290 , 297 (Tex. App. –Dallas 20 06, no pe t.). Bev er ly bel iev ed i tse lf v icti miz ed by the all eg ed fraud , breache d fiduc iar y duty and cons piracy

of it s t hree oppo nents and , th e re fore, enti tl ed to a c onst ru cti v e tr ust
. The mo tion for sum ma ry

judgmen t f iled by Ly nch a nd Sa n Marin o a d d re s s e d ea ch of those poss ibl e c auses of

acti on. No nethel ess , Be v er ly has rest ri cte d i ts appel lat e efforts to t he3

all eg ati on of breache d fiduc iar y duty
. That i s, itdoes not ass ert t hat th e tr ial co urt er re d in re jecti ng i ts caus es of acti on s oundi ng i n fraud or co nspi ra cy . S o , w e too rest ri ct our focus to thattopic as w ell. Bev er ly ’s first a p p e l l a t e fo ra y i n t o t h e b re a c h i n v o l v e d S a n M a ri no. The lat ter allegedly w as no t ent itled to summ aryjudgmen t beca use it “of fered no evidence to supp ort it s a rg ument” thati t l acked a f id u ci ar y or co nfidenti al re lat ion shi p w it h Bev er ly
. Ins tead, accord ing to Beverly , San Marino “attem pt[e d] to improp erly place th e bu rden on Be v erly of prov ing i ts cl aims i n respon se to a Mo ti on fo r Su m m a ry Ju dg ment.” An d, s inc e San Ma ri no faile d to proffer

any ev ide nce neg ati ng an e lementof Bev er ly ’s cl aim, no j udg ment could have been ente red. T hese a rg um ent s could ha v e me rit had Sa n Marino f iled on ly a traditio nal m otion for sum ma ry judgmen t. But, it did not. It also sought one on the basis that Bev er ly

had “n o ev ide nce” to prov e ei ther the ex is tenc e of a fiduc iar y rela ti onshi p, a breach o f

t h a t re lat ion shi p, or

San Ma ri no’ s recei pt of any proceed s “ as a resul t of any breach
. . . .” G iv en the “no ev ide nce” alle g ati on, Bev er ly actual ly had the burd en to tende r some a dmis si ble ev ide nce il lus trati ng the presenc e of each el ement attac ked. T EX . R. C IV . P. 16 6a(i) (stating that th e trial court m u s tg ra nt a no -ev iden ce mo tion for sum ma ry jud g ment unl ess the non- mov ant p re sent s e v ide nce suffici ent t o c re ate a mat e ri al is sue of fact ). An d, i ts firs t c ontent ion i s o v er ru led
. Next, Bev er ly ass erted that summar y jud g ment in fav or

of Ly nch w as unw ar ra nted b e c a u s e t h e re e xis t e d e vid e n c e t h a tL yn c h h a d a co n f id e n t i a l r e la t io n s h ip wit h A b b e y. As su m in g ar

guendothatto be tr ue, i t is of no moment. The sui t was not b etw een Ab bey and Ly nch b u t ra ther

Bev er ly and Ly nch. So , ev ide nce of a pr ior rela ti onshi p betw eenT o t he e xt ent t her e m aybe ev i dence t hat Ly nch e nga ged i n con duct wi t h Bev er l yt o f ur t hert he 2 pur por t ed j oi nt v ent ur e un der l y i ng t he su i t , i t t oo i s i nconseq uent i al
. As Beve r l yacknowl edged i n i t s br i ef , t he conf i dent i al r el at i onshi p un der l y i ng t he su i t “ m ust exi st apa r t and pr i ort o t he t r ansact i on m ade t he b asi s of t he l aw s ui t
. ” R a n k in v . N a ft a lis , 557 S. W
. 2d 9 40, 944 ( T ex. 1 977)
. T hi s, coup l ed wi t h Abbey ’ s at t est at i on t hat t he “ Beve r l yFoundat i on was i ncor por at ed i n 19 95 t o r ecei v e owner shi p of
. . . wor k i ng i nt er est [ s] ” at i ssue, n e g a te s a n y r e a s o n a b le in f e r e n c e th a t t h e r e e x is te d a c o n f id e n tia l r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n L yn c h a n d B e v e r ly a p a rt fr o m th e ve n tu re u n d e rly i n g th i s s u i t.

O u r re a d i n g o f B e v e rly ’ s o rig in a l p e tit i o n u n c o v e re d n o c a u s e o f a c ti o n fo r b re a c h o f c o n tra c t. 3 N onet hel ess, bot h Sof am co an d Bev er l ypr oceede d be l ow as i fone was al l eged. So, we wi l l concl ude t hat i t w a s e ff e c ti v e l ytri e d b yc o n s e n t vi a a m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t. 4 Ly nch and A b b e y a l o n e i s n o t e v i d e n c e o f a p r i o r re l a t i o n s h i p b e tw e e n L y n c h a n d a cor porati on for w hic h Abbe y acts as a tr ust ee, i. e. Bev er ly
. The c ontent ion i s o v er ru led
. 2 Next, Bev er ly

su g g est ed th at ev ide nce of L ync h’s pr ior

rela ti onshi p w it h Abbe y c o n s t it u t e d so m e e vid e n c e t h a tS a n Ma ri n o h a d a co n f id e n t ia l re la t io n s h i p wit h B e ve rl y. T his argume nt lacks foun dat ion for t he sa me reason s state d ab ove. Furthe rmore , Beverly faile d to ci te us to anyev ide nce dev elo pin g the leg al or bus ine ss rela ti onshi p or co nnect ion betw een Ly nch o r San M arino ( an entity that ap pea rs to be a limite d pa rtnership ). N or did w e f ind an y

of record. Conse quently, we can only guess at w het her Lynch cou ld act for, bind , or oth erw ise have his acts attribute d to San Marino, and that is not legitimat e ba sis to rev erse the j udg ment. The c ontent ion i s o v er ru led
. Sum mar y Ju dgmen t fo r S of

amco As previously

men tione d, So fam co also m oved for su mm aryju dgme nt on Be v erly ’s pur por ted c lai m of brea ched cont ra ct. Throug h i t, Sofamco al leg ed th at t here was no 3 ev ide nce of 1) an ag re ement between i t and Bev er ly to actas j oin t v enturers, 2) a w ri tten ag re ement t o c onv ey

an i nterest as re q uired by the Stat ute o f Frauds, and 3) an a g re ement capab le of perfor mance w it hin one y ear of its ex ecut ion
. Ag ain , t he moti on was g ra nted w it hout the t ri al cour

t s peci fyi ng the g ro unds upon w hic h i t reli ed.G l e n S o d e rs tro m fo rm e d S o fa m c o to o p e ra te o i l a n d g a s l e a s e s . 4 5 On ap pea l, Beverly

argued tha tt h ere w as suf f icient evidence of

a joint v ent ure betw een it and So fam co, th at th e Sta tute of Frauds w as inap plicable , tha t Sofam co atte mp ted to fo is tu p o n it the b urde n to de featthe St atu te of Frauds, an d tha t sum ma ry ju d g me n t w a s g ra n t e d o n c a u s e s o f a ct i o n o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f S o fa mc o ’ s mo ti on. W e d is a gre e a n d o ve rr u le e a c h p ro p o s it io n fo r t h e re a s o n s t h a tfo ll o w. Or al Joi nt V entur e Agr eem ent In attempti ng to il lus trate how the tr ial cour t er re d i n deny ing the cl aim of breac hed cont ract, Be v erly

actua lly focuse d up on its de ma nd fo r a const ructiv e trust. Allegedly, in breachi ng the ag re ement, Sofamco al so v iol ated v ar iou s fid uci ar y duti es ar is ing from t he cont ract. Fu rtherm ore, the co ntracta t issue en com passe d a sup pose d oral joint venture ag re ement be tw een Be v er ly a n d S o fa mco. Per

thi s a ll eg ed ag re ement, Sofamco obl ig ated it sel f to co nv ey

to Bev er ly

a wor ki ng i nteresti n c erta in m ine ra l lea ses . Beca use itfail ed to do so , i t notonl y

breache d the j oin t v enture ag re eme n t b ut al so v iol ated the aforem ent ione d f iduciary duties owed t o Beverly a s a jo int v ent urer. Next, v iolating tho se fiduci ar y duti es all eg edl y

en ti tl e d B e v er ly

to the i mposi ti on of a c onst ru cti v e tr uston So famc o’ s i nt eres t i n th e s am e l ea s es . An d, fi na l l y , be c au s e th e rec ord c on ta i ne d s om e ev ide nce il lus trati ng the v ali dity of the cl aims , Bev er ly bel iev ed the t ri al cour t was bar re d from g ra nti ng Sofamco a summar y j udg ment. W e di sag re e. T he a rg um entbefore us w as foun ded upo n a twofo ld prop o s it io n . Fi rst, w e w ere tol d tha t Be v er ly

“entered into an oral join t v enture w it h [Glen ] So derstrom” and So famco. 4 Seco nd, B ev er ly

av er re d tha t i t was enti tl ed to reli ef “.
. . as a res u ltof the breach of the6

fiduci ar y rel ati onshi p betw een Ab bey and [Gl en] S o de rs t

ro m. ” ( Emphasi s a dded)
. And, to es tabl is h t h e accuracy of thes e proposi ti ons, w e w ere referred to the aff ida v itof Joe Abbey
. But, our

readi ng of that aff ida v itdi d not lead us to the s ame co ncl usi ons re ached by Bev er ly
. It is q uite true thatAbbe y allude d to an oral agreeme nt i nvolv ing the forma tion o f “a joint venture. ” Yet, accordin g to him , the parties w ho “en tered into” the agreeme nt w ere “Th e Beverly

Found ation and Glen So derstrom ,” not Be ve rl y a nd So fam co. So, unless Sofamco and Soderstrom are one and t he s ame enti ty , w hic h no one sug g est ed or prov ed, Sod erstrom ’s ow n agreem entt o j o in B e verly in a v ent ure is not evidence thatSofam co joi ned i t as w ell
. That Abbe y

des cr ibe d Sofamco as Soderstrom’s “ nomine e” al so faile d to cons ti tute ev ide nce that the c or porati on was a par ty to the v enture. This i s s o bec ause in cal li ng the company

Soderstrom’s “ nomine e,” Abbey neg lected t o pro v i d e fa ct u a l d a t a e x p l a i n ing w hat tha t term me ant
. Bein g one ’s “nom inee ” could me an man y things includin g tha t Sofam co w as int ended t o be a mere reci pie nt of s ome g ra nt or co nv ey ance. Thompson v. Meyers , 505 P. 2d 680, 684 (K an. 1 973) ( sta ti ng that the word nomi nee has more tha n one meanin g inc lud ing thatof a person w ho i s n amed or des ig nated as a r e cip ie n t of a g ra nt or c on v ey an c e)
. O r , i t c ould b e th atS ofa mc o w as s el ecte d to a ct for S od ers trom i n s om e l i mi t e d w a y . B L A CK ’ S L AW D I CTI ONA RY1149 (9 ed. 2009) ( defini ng nomi nee as one th desi g nated to representanot her in a li mite d sens e)
. So too c oul d i t mean that the p arti es int ended for

Sofamco t o be th e reci pie nt of proper ty but other

w is e i nsul ated from the act s of Soderstrom. See e.g. Petr ocana , Inc. v. W

il li amH. Ke nny Con sultants, Ltd. , 595 So. 2d 384, 385 ( La. Ct
. App. 1992) ( w herein F ly nn des ig nated Kenny C onsul tants as hi s n omineeW e d id s e e a d o c u m e n t a tt a c h e d t o A b b e y’s a ff id a v it s u g g e s tin g t h a t S o d e r s tr o m m a y b e S o f a m c o ’s 5
“ Vi ce- Pr esi dentand G ener al M anage r . ” Fur t her m or e, t he docum ent appear ed t o be a l et t erf r om Soder st r om t o Ly nc h. Y et, i t w as unsi gned and Abbeydi d no t at t est t o i t s aut hent i ci t y . T hus, i t t oo l acks t he st at us of c o m p e te n t s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t e v i d e n c e . L lo p a , In c . v . N a g e l, 9 5 6 S .W .2 d 8 2 , 8 7 ( T e x . A p p .– S a n A n to n io 1997, pet
. den i ed)
. And, ev en a ssum i ng a r g u e n do tha t S od erst r om act ual l yhel d such off i ces, nei t hert he aff i dav i t noranyot herev i dence ofr eco rd de s c ri be d t he a ut hor i t y , i fany , Soder st r om m ayhav e ha d ov er S o fa m c o b e c a u s e h e h e ld t h o s e p o s i ti o n s . A ti tl e m a yju s t b e a ti tl e w i th o u t e x p l a n a ti o n o f th e a u th o rit y a c c o m p a n y i n g i t. 7 to rec eiv e mineral le ases acq uired in f urtherance of a mutual proje ct w it h Pet ro cana and hol din g thatas a no minee Kenny C onsul tants w as not respon si ble fo r Fl y nn’ s refusal to abid e by his agreem entto transfer Petroca na an overri ding royalty interestin the lea ses). Mo re i mport antl y , non e of those si tuati ons alo ne (ev en if they appl ied here) woul d al low us to reas onabl y

deduce that becaus e Sofamco may hav e been Soderstrom’s nomi nee i t ipso fac toag re ed to j oin the joi nt venture or as su m e any

co ntract ual and fiduci ar y obl ig ati on S o d e rs t ro m ma y

h a v e o w e d B e v e r l y . S o , w i t h o u te v i d e n c e d e v e l o p i n g t h e ro l e o f a “n ominee ” or

othe rw is e i ll ust ra ti ng thatSoderstrom had t he aut hor ity t o b ind Sofamco, cons ide ri ng Sofamco a s Soderst ro m’s “ nomine e” i s a co ncl usi on th at i nv it es utter spec ula ti on. And, as a c oncl usi on, i t means noth ing for p ur poses of summar y j udg ment. 5 See Dickerson v. Davis , 925 S.W .2d 123, 126 (Tex . App.–Amar il lo 1996, w ri t di sm’ d w .o.j .) (h old ing thata c oncl usi on i s a st atement that o m it s the und er ly ing facts nec ess ar y to suppo rti t and , t herefore, is not compet ent s ummary j udg ment ev ide nce)
. Si mply put, the re cord before us falls shor t of c re ati ng a mater ial i ss ue of fact on the q uest ion of w hether

Sofamco en tered a joi nt v enture w it h Bev er ly , ag re ed to as sume t he duti es and obl ig ati ons of Soderstrom i n the su ppose d Bev er ly /Soderstrom v enture, or had any othe r ki nd of fiduc iar

y rela ti onshi p w it h Bev er ly . And, unl ess there was an ag re ement, the re could b e no breach of it or fidu ciary

dutie s ema nat ing from it. Thu s, the trial court8

leg it imat ely

hel d, as a matter

of law , that Sofamco w as enti tl ed to summar y j udg ment on the c lai m of brea ched cont ra ct and c onst ru cti v e tr ust
. Statute o f F

ra uds As for th e al leg ati on th at t he St atute of Frauds did not suppo rtsu mmary j udg ment, much d epends upon the a ll eg ati ons in Bev er ly ’s or ig ina l peti ti on. Sadl y , i t i s n ot an ex ample of cl ar ity . Y et, w e mustread i t l ibe ra ll y , Mo neyho n v . Moneyh on, 278 S. W .3d 874, 878 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4 D is t.] 2009, no pet.)(req uir ing that pleadi ng s be read th li berall y ) and, in so cons tr uin g i t, w e deduc e tha t Be v er ly w anted a one- eig hth wor ki ng intere st in the m ineral lease s at issue. W e f urthe r dedu ce tha t Beverly believed itself enti tl ed to the int erestbec ause Sofamco and/or Soderstrom promis ed to conv ey i t und er the o ra l joi nt v enture ag re ement. Y et, cont ra cts for t he s ale of re al est ate a re req uired to be w ri tten and s ig ned by the par ty to be c harg ed. T EX . B US . & C OM . C OD E A NN . §26.01( b) (4 ) (V er non 2009)
. And, an agreement t o c onv ey a wor ki ng i nteresti n a mi neral lea se is suc h a c ontract
. Exxon C or p. v . Br eezevale, Ltd., 82 S.W .3d 429, 437 (Tex . Ap p. –Da ll as 2002, pet. deni ed) ; see als o Long Tr ust s v. Gri ffi n, 2 2 2 S
. W
. 3 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 6 (T e x. 2006) ( sta ti ng thata c ontractfor t he transfer or ass ig nment of an i nteresti n an oil and g as lea se is a real proper

ty i nterests u bje ct to t he s tatut e of frauds ). So , any al leg ed oral ag re ement by

Sofamco t o c onv ey

the wor ki ng i nterestBe verl y d emanded woul d be unenforc eabl e. Nev erthel ess , Be v er ly endeavore d on appeal to esc ape t his resul t by posi ng two arg uments
. Throug h the first, w e are tol d tha t t he s uppos ed oral agreement betw een the par ti es coul d be per

formed w it hin one y ear . See T EX . B US . & C OM . C OD E A NN . §26 .01( b) (6 )9

(Verno n 20 09) (requiri ng a greem ent s which ca nno t be p erforme d w ithin on e y ear to b e in w r i ti ng )
. W hi l e th i s c ou l d be t r ue , th e al l eg at i on d oe s n ota dd res s t he req ui rem en t for a w riting w he n a gr e e ing to convey interests in rea l property. So, this cont ent ion is unpersuas iv e. The sec ond arg ument mentio n e d by Bev er ly co nsi sts of the p ro posi ti on th at Sofam co att em pte d to im prop erly shif tt h e b u rd en o f

proof . In oth er words, So fam co all eg edl y had the burden to est abl is h, as a matter of law , t hat t he s tatut e appl ied si nce the Stat ute o f Frauds w as an affirmat iv e defense. See LaC our v. Lank for d C o., Inc ., 287 S.W .3d 1 05, 1 10 ( Tex
. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2009, pet. deni ed) (h old ing thata de fendant w ho s eeks to prov e an aff ir mati v e defense v ia a m o ti o n for su mmary

j udg ment has the burden t o prov e the el ements of the d efense)
. Ins tead of car ry ing that burden by tend er ing ev ide nce prov ing the ele ments of the St atute of Fra u d s, Sofamco merely as ser ted t hat Beverly had no e vid e nce o f

a w ritten agreem entor promise . According to Beverly , this im p li c it ly i m p o s e d o n itt h e b u rd e n t o d is p ro ve t h e d e fe n s e . As s u m in g t h is t o b e t ru e , we non eth eless liken th e situa tio n t o t hatold ada ge abou t skinning a cat. Once the catis skinne d, it doe s not m atte r how it was don e for the result i s the sam e. T hat too can be said here. By

the ti me Sofamco mov ed for summar y j udg ment, Be verl y h a d al re ady fil ed i ts ow n motion along w it h Abbe y ’s aff ida v it
. As prev iou sl y al lud ed to , Ab bey

es tabl is hed not o n l y t h a tt h e a g re e me n t i n q u e s t i o n w a s o ra l b u t a l s o t h a t i t i n v o l v e d t h e c o n v e y a n c e o f a w or ki ng i nterestin a m ineral l ease. C onseq uentl y , t he ev ide nce re q uired to tr ig g er appl ic ati on of the Stat ute o f Frauds w as before t he c our t. See Kni

ghton v. In te rn a tio n al Busi ness M achi nes Cor p., 856 S.W .2d 2 06, 2 08 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [ 1 Dist.] 1 993 , w rit st10

deni ed) ( hol din g thatw here the par ti es file cross moti ons for s ummary j udg ment, the t ri al court m ust l o o kat the ev iden ce ten dere d by both m ovants w hen decidin g how to rule). That l eft Sofamco in the posit ion of m erely bri ng ing the matter

to the tr ial co urt’ s a ttent ion
. So, itmay

w ell be t hat S ofamco uti li z ed odd procedu ra l ste ps to presenti ts all eg ati on to the t ri al cour

t. The defense, nonethe les s, w as in pla y des pit e the words used in it s mot ion for s umm a ry ju d gm ent. F urther more, the tr ial co urt had Abbey ’s aff ida v itfrom w hic h to c o n c lu d e , a s a m a tt e r o f la w, t h a tt h e S t a t u t e o f Fra u d s b a rre d re c o ve ry. Scop e of Sum m ar

y Judgm ent W e no w come to t h e f inal issue pro f fered to secure the reversal of the sum ma ry jud gm e n t aw arded So famco. Throug h i t, w e are tol d tha t So famco’s moti on fail ed to e n c o m p a s s t h e c l a i m s o f f ra u d , c o n s p i ra cy a n d b re a c h o f t h e f i d u c i a r

y re l a t i o n s h i p . W e overrule it as well. Bev er ly i s q uit e c or re ct in sta ti ng thata s ummary j udg m e n t ca n not b e g ra nted on caus es of acti on omi tted from the moti on. Johns on v . Brewer & P ritch ar d, P.C ., 73 S. W .3d 193, 204 ( Tex . 200 2)
. But, thati s n ot t he s it uati on here. In pray ing for s ummary j udg ment, Sofamco as ked the tr ial cour t to “s et thi s No Ev ide nce Summary Ju dg ment for hear ing and a t t h a t t im e en te r an ord e r gra n ti n g Defe n d a n t’ s m o ti o n an d di sm iss in g all cl aim s a nd caus es of ac ti

on ag ain st So famco, Inc .” ( Emphasi s a dded)
. The parameters s et by the phrase “a ll clai ms and causes of acti on” m ustnec ess ar il y i ncl ude t he al leg ati ons of f ra ud, consp iracy

and construct iv e trust. If this w as no t so, the n “all” would not m ean “all.” This i s n ot t o say

that the m oti on w as free of defect
. Admittedl y , So famco di d not spec ify the g ro unds or

reaso ns w hy

it beli ev ed its elf entit led to summar y judg ment on the11

cl aims of f ra ud, cons piracy

and cons tr uct ive tr ust
. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 166a( c)( obl ig ati ng the mov ant t o s p e cifythe par ti cul ar g ro unds suppo rt ing su mmary j udg ment)
. Y et, the re cord does not show

thatBev er ly obj ect ed or sp eci all y

ex cept ed to the moti on’ s for m or lac k o f speci fici ty . So, that compl ain t was w aiv ed. See Sim m ons v.W are , 920 S.W .2d 4 38, 450 ( Tex
. App.–A mari ll o 1996, no w ri t) ( sta ti ng thatthe failu re to spec ify the g ro unds for sum ma ry

judgmen t doe s not require rev ersal unle ss the pa rty comp lain in g of

the de fect files an e x ception poi nti ng out that the l ack of spec ific ity

l eft him w it hout adeq uate infor mati on)
. Nor

do we hav e before us t h e a rg ument t hat s inc e Sofamco o mitt ed to spec ify g ro unds or

prof fe r e vi dence address ing thos e c auses of act ion i t fail ed to prov e, as a matt er

of law , i ts enti tl ement to s ummary j udg ment. Bev er ly

si mply co mplai ned t hat the mot ion fail ed to i ncl ude t hose caus es of acti on, a nd th at i s i nacc urate. Hav ing ov er ru led eac h i ss ue, we aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s s ummary j udg ment.
Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice