i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 7- 00 72 7- CV Pete RA M IREZ , III , Appellant
v . B i s h o p G r e g o r

y MANSOUR in His Representative and/or Tr ustee Capa city

for the E parc hy

of Sa int Maro n a nd St. Ge or g e Maro nit e Churc h; a nd Ar c hb ish op Jose H. Go me z, in his Represe ntative and/or Tr

ustee Capa city

for the A rchdioc ese of

San Antonio, Appellee s Fr om the 131st J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CI -15037 Honora ble J anet L ittlejohn, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 8, 2009 AFF I RMED Pete Ramirez, I I Iappea ls the trial court’s or der g ranti n g s u m m ar y judgme nt in favor of Bishop Gr eg ory

Mansour in his r e prese ntative and/or truste e ca pacity for the E parc hy

of Saint Maron of B rookly

n and St. Ge org e Maronite Church and Arc hbishop J ose H. Gome z in hi s repr esentative and/or trustee capa city

for the A rchdioc ese of

San Antonio (collec tively , “the Churc h”). For the
rea sons set forth below, w e af firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.04
- 07
- 00 72 7- CV

- 2- F A C TUA L & P R OC EDU R A L B ACKG ROUND I n the lawsuit curr ently

befor e us, Ramirez sued t he C hurch and Monsignor J ames T. Khour

y for intent io n a l an d n e g li g e n t in f li c ti o n o f e mo ti o n a l d is tr e s s , b r e a c h o f f id u c ia r y d u ti e s , b r e a c h of
or a l c on tr a c t, f

ra ud ule nt ind uc e me nt int o ora l con tr a c t, ne g lig e nc e , an d de fa matio n ar isi ngfr om h is participation in a 2004 defroc kment proce eding . The Churc h mo v ed for summary judgme nt on g ro un ds of

re s jud ic a ta and

/or c oll a te ra l e sto pp e l, arguin g that the se c la ims c ou ld h a ve , a nd sh ou ld have, bee nb r o u g h t i na

p r io r s u it f il e d b y Ra mi r e z a n d d is p o s e d o f b y s u mm ar y ju d g me n t. To understand the issues befor e us, we must first set for th the backg round fa cts, which span ove r two deca des. Ac c or din g to t

he summa ry jud g me nt e vid e nc e , in

19 82 , Ra mir e z, the n a

hig h s c ho ol s tud e nt, was sexually

abused by

Khoury , a Mar onite priest of St
. Ge o rg e Mar onite Church. In 1985, Ramir e z, h is f

a the r, mot

he r, and sis te r e nte re d in to a

se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt a

nd e xec ute d a

re le a se of cla ims ag ainst Khoury , St. Georg e Mar onite Church, and the Eparc hy of St. Maron in Br ookly

n, New York. I n the spring of 2004, Ramirez, by and throug h his attorney , Robert Scamar do, provided
wr itt e n n oti c e to B ish op Mans our a nd the Ep arc hy of his a lle g a tio ns re g ard ingthe 19 82 se xua l a bu se by Kh oury and of fe re d to ne g oti a te a se ttl e me nt of any and a ll c la ims ari sin g fr om h is s e xua l a ssa ult in exchang e for , among other thing s, permane nt removal of K houry from the m in is tr

y , p s y c h o the rapy for Ramire z and his family as long as thera

py was deemed he lpful to Ramirez’s healing , and
m o n et ary d am age s fo r t h e a l l ege d

as s au l t s , m en t al an gu i s h , an d p ai nan d s u ff er i n g. I n J uly 2004, Dr. Anthony

Shaia, C h ai rm an of the Eparc hy Review B oard ( “the B oard” ), inv ite d Ramir e z to a

pp e ar and g ive te sti mony be fo re the B oa rd in Wa sh ing ton , D .C. re g ard inghis alleg ations ag ainst Khoury . Attorney Scamar do emailed Shaia outlining Ramirez’s conditions for04
- 07
- 00 72 7- CV

1 ... R am i rez lat er f

i l ed his F i rs t A m end ed P et i t i o n o n A p ri l 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , t he l i ve p l ead i ng upo n whi ch summ ary ju d g m e n t wa s g ra n te d
.

2 ... T he H o no rab l e M i ch ae l P ed en , p resid i ng jud ge o f t he 2 8 5 t h J ud i cial D i st rict C o urt, B ex ar C o un t y, T ex as, g ra n te d the su m m a ry j u d g m e n t.

- 3- appea ranc e; he subseque ntly

confirme d that Ramirez would appea r and de manded $25 million for damag es. On August 5, 2004, Ramirez appear ed bef ore the Boa

rd alongwith his attorney s. I n November

2004, Ramirez reta ined attorney Robert Rush, who advised the Epar chy that any an d al l p reviously

discussed off

ers a ssociated with Ramirez’s dema nds were withdrawn. O n May 16, 2005 1 , Ramirez filed his first lawsuit ag ainst Bishop Mansour in his re prese ntative and/or tr us te e c a pa c ity fo r the Ep arc hy of Sa int Ma ro n and St. Ge or g e Maro nit e Chu rc h, Ar c hb ish op Jose H. Gomez in his repre sentative a n d / o r t ru s tee c apac ity

for the A rchdioc ese of

San Antonio, and Mo ns ig no r Jame s K

ho ur y to r e c ov e r f

or the se xua l a ssa

ult s p e rp e tr a te d a g a ins t hi m by Khour y in 1982 (her einaf

ter refe rre d to as t he “2005 la wsuit”). Ramirez claimed that the statute of limitations
was tolled on his c laims beca use he w as oper ating under a leg al disability , i.e. , unsound mind. The Church re sponded with a g ener al denial and the aff irmative defenses of rele ase based upon the 1985 settlement ag ree ment and the statute of limit ations. The Church a lso counterc laimed for br eac h of the conf identialit y a gr e e me nt contained in the 1985 se ttlement ag ree ment. Subsequently , the Church filed a traditional motion for summary judgme nt on the g rounds that Ramirez’s claims we re ba rre d by limit ations and re lease . On May 10, 2 0 06, the trial cour t 2 g rante d the Church’ s summary jud g me nt o n a ll of Ramir e z’s c la ims and c a us e s o f a c tio n a

nd se ve re d th e summa

ry jud g me nt i nto
a new cause number, 2006-CI -10600. The Churc h’s counter claims related to the 1985 settlement ag ree ment rema ined pending . This court af firmed the summar

y judgme nt in an opinion dated04
- 07
- 00 72 7- CV

3 ... In bri ef

i ng be f o re t hi s co urt , t he C hurch r ef ers t o R am i rez’ s A ugust 20 0 6 co unt ercl ai m as t he “ second l awsui t
. ” W e ad o p t t hat ref erence f o r eas e o f

unde rs t and i ng.

- 4- Aug ust 1, 2007. S

e e R a m ir e

z v . Mansour , N o . 0 4
- 0 6
- 0 0 5 3 6
- CV , 2 0 0 7 WL 2 1 8 7 1 0 3 ( T e x. App.—San Antonio Aug . 1, 2007, no pet.) (me m. op.). I n Augus t 20 06 , Ramir e z, a s c ounte r- de fe nd ant, fi le d a c ounte rc la im a g a ins t th e Churc h in the re maining la

wsuit, claiming he was “ victimiz ed a second ti me” in 2004 when he testified be fore the B oard. 3 Spe c if

ic a lly , h is “ Se c on d A me nd e d Co unte rc la im A g a ins t D e fe nd ants ” re a ds in p art : I n 2 0 04, Pete Ramirez was victimized a second time. Well-aw are of the devastating impac t that the [1982] abuse ha d on Pete, the Ar chdioce se and the Eparc hy contac ted Pete and a sked him to testify ag ainst Khoury

in a chur ch pr oc e e din g inv e sti gati ng Kh oury wi tho ut a

ny c on sid e ra

tio n o f t he se ve re e ff

e c ts providing testimony

could have on Pete. I n return, the Arc hdiocese and the Epa rchy promised to take c are of Pete, a nd to, a mong other things, g et him whatever help he and his family neede d to heal f rom the neweff

ects testifying c ould have on his life. Pe te ho no re d h is e nd

of the a g re e me nt. I ns te a d o f k e e pin g the ir

pr omi se , th e Ar c hd ioc e se and the Ep arc hy on c e a g a in c a st Pe te a sid e wh e n th e y

we re fi nis he d w ithhim , f

or c inghim to de a l w iththe e ff e c ts of his testimony

and the he aringon his own. Ramirez asserte d the following cause s of ac tion stemmi ng from the 2004 “ second vic timiz ation”: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) neg lige nt infliction of emotional d istress; (3)
ne g lig e nc e ; ( 4) br e a c h o f f idu c iary du ty ; ( 5) br e a c h of or a l con tr a c t; ( 6) fr a ud ule nt i nd uc e me nt i nto oral c ontrac t; ( 7) defa

mation; a nd (8) a decla

ratory judgme nt that the 1985 settlement ag ree ment was unenfor cea

ble and/or void. Th e Churc h a g a in s ou g ht s umm ary jud g me nt b a se d o n the a ff ir mativ e de fe ns e s of r e s ju dic a ta and collate ral e stoppel. The Church f urther a sserted a s a basis for summary j u d gm en t that the Dec laratory J udg ment Act is not available for disputes alr eady pending befor e the tria l court. Ramirez filed a r esponse to the motion for summ ary judgme nt in which he maintained r es judicata did not bar04
- 07
- 00 72 7- CV

- 5- his counterc laim beca

use it did not arise fr om the sexual assault claim that was pre viously disposed of by summary

judgme nt. The trial cour t gr anted summary

judgme nt in f

avor of the Church, a

nd
se ve re d th e summa

ry jud g me nt int o a new

c a us e numbe r, 20 07 -C I -1 50 37 . Ra mir e z time ly

fi le d th is
a pp e a l. D I S CUS S I ON Do es Re s J udic ata Bar

Ramire z’ s Se c ond Suit? 1. Sta nda rd

of Re v ie w – Su mm ar

y Jud gment The pa rty moving for t raditional sum mary judgme nt car ries the burden of establishing that no g enuine mate rial fa ct issue ex ists and that it is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law. T EX . R. C IV . P. 166a(c) ; Rh on e -P ou le nc, I nc . v . S te e l, 99 7 S. W.2 d 2 17 , 2 23 (T e x. 19 99 ); J on es v . Ni gh tin ga le , 900 S.W .2d 87, 88 (Tex. App.—San Antoni o 1995, writ ref ’d). When moving f

or summary

judgme nt on an af firmative de fense , the def endant must conc lusive l y establish eac h essential ele ment of that defe nse. Rhone-P oulenc , 9 97 S.W. 2d at 22 3. On c e a

de fe nd ant p ro du c e s su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e to establish the rig ht to summ ary judgme nt, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to produce controve rting evidenc e ra ising a

fac t issue. Ce nte q Re alt

y , Inc . v. Sie

gle r, 89 9 S. W.2 d 1 95 , 1 97 (T e x. 19 95 ); Romo v. Tex. D ep’t. of Transp., 48 S.W .3d 265, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.). We r e vie w m oti on s f

or summa ry jud g me nt deno v o. Va le nc e Op e ra tin g Co . v . D or se tt, 164 S.W. 3d 65 6, 66 1 (T e x. 20 05 ); Romo, 48 S.W .3d at 269. I n deciding whether there is a disputed issue of mate ri a l f

a c t pr e c lud ingsumma

ry jud g me nt, “ we take a s tr

ue a ll c omp e te nt e vid e nc e fa vo ra ble to the no n m o v an t , an d

we i n d u l ge e v ery

re as o n ab l e i n fe re n ce an d

re s o l v e a n y

d o u b t s i nt h e n o n m o v an t ’s favor .” DiversicareGen. Partner, I nc. v. R ubio, 185 S.W .3d 842, 846 (Tex. 2005)
. When, a s here , the tr ia l court do e s not state the ba sis fo r i ts d e c isi on in i ts summa

ry jud g me nt or de r, we mus t up ho ld04
- 07
- 00 72 7- CV

- 6- the order if any of t he theories advanc ed are mer itorious. Pr ov ide nt L ife& Ac c ide nt I ns . Co . v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 211, 216 (Tex. 2003). 2. Re

s J udic ata Res judicata, or

claims prec lusion, prevents the re litigation of a claim or cause of ac tion that has bee n finally

adjudi ca ted, as we ll as relate d matters that, with the use of diligenc e, should have been litig ated in the pr ior suit. Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Fed. Sav

. , 837 S.W .2d 627, 628-29 (Te x . 1992). “The doctrine is intended to prevent causes of action fr om being split, t hus curbingvexatious l itigation and pr omoting judicial ec onomy .” Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Vale ro Energy Cor p . , 9 9 7 S
. W
. 2 d

2 0 3 , 2 0 7 (T ex . 1 9 9 9 ) ( ci t i n g Ba rr , 837 S.W .2d at 629). The elements of r es jud ic a ta are : ( 1) a pr ior fi na l ju dg me nt o n the me ri ts b y a c ourt of c omp e te nt j ur isd ic tio n; ( 2) ide nti ty of par ties or those in privity with them; and (3) a second action base d on the same c laims that were raised or could have b ee n raised in the f irst action. Igal v. Brightstar Info. Tech. Group, Inc ., 250 S.W. 3d 78 , 8 6 ( Te x. 20 08 ); Amstadt v. U. S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W .2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996).

“ Th e sc op e of

re s ju dic ata

is n ot l imi te d to matte rs a c tua lly lit ig a te d; t

he jud g me nt i n th e fi rs t suit precludes a

second a ction by

the par ties and their pr ivies not only on matters ac tually

litigated, but also on causes of action or def enses whic h arise out of

the same subject matter and which mig ht have be en litigated in the first suit.” Ba rr , 8 3 7 S
. W
. 2 d at 6 3 0 (q u o t i n g Tex. W ater Rights Comm’n v. Crow Iron W

orks , 582 S.W .2d 768, 771-72 (Te x . 1979) (e mphasis added ))
. T o d etermine what
co n s ti tute s th e s u

b je c t matt e r o f a s u it , w e an a ly ze th e f a c tu a l matt e r s th a t ma

k e u p th e g is t of

the
c omp la int , w ith ou t r e g ard to t he fo rm of a c tio n; any c a

us e of a c tio n w hic h a

ri se s o ut o f t

ho se same fac ts should, if practica

ble, be litigated i n t he same lawsuit. Ba rr , 837 S.W .2d at 630; Crow Iron W or k s, 582 S.W .2d at 772.04
- 07
- 00 72 7- CV

- 7- 3. Anal

y sis Her e , th e f

ir s t t w o e le me n ts o f

th e a f f ir mati v e d e f

e n s e o f r e s ju d ic a ta

ar e n o t c halleng ed. There fore , we f

ocus our analy sis on whe ther Ramire z’s counterc laim is based on the same claims that
wer e raised or c ould have be en ra ised in his 2005 lawsuit previously disposed of by

summary judgme nt. See B arr, 837 S.W .2d at 630-31; Ig al, 25 0 S. W.3 d at 86 . Init ia lly , w e no te tha t th e re is
no dispute that the claims related to the 2004 def rockme nt proce eding acc rued a nd wer e fully

mature at the time Ramirez filed hi s 2005 lawsuit and, therefor e, it is ag ree d that the 2004 claims could have been r aised in the 2005 law suit. See I ngersoll-Rand, 997 S.W .2d at 207 (noting that a cla im is m ature wh e n it ha s ac c ru e d) . Ram ir e z argue s only that he wa s not re qu ir e d to bri ng the c la ims a t th e same ti me . Ra mi r e z r e f e r s to h is c o u n te r c la im a s p e r mi s s iv e , c o n c e d in g th a t a lt h o ug h he could have
a sse rt e d th e c la ims in t

he 20 05 laws uit , h e wa s n ot required to do so. The Churc h responds that de spite Ramirez’s attempt to disti ng uish the t wo l awsuits by the twenty -y ear

g ap betwe en the “ first victimiz ation” and the “sec ond victimiz ation,” all of the fa ctual alleg ations and causes of action in the second la wsuit are pr edicated on Ramirez’s orig inal claim of
se xua l a bu se by Kh oury . In f

a c t, t he “ se c on d v ic tim iza tio n” oc c ur re d w hil e he wa s atte mpt ing to neg otiate with the Church a resolution of h i s “f

i rs t victimiz ation” cla im. Additionally , all of the
a lleg ati on s co ncerni ng th e 20 04 defr ock men t p roce edi ng andth e caus es o f act ion a sso c ia te d th e re wi th
occur red pr ior to filing the 2005 la wsuit, and ce rtainly

prio r t o t h e hea

ring on the first motion for summary judgme nt. Accor dingly , the Church maintains that Ramirez w as require d to bring all cause s of ac tion in the 2005 lawsuit. We ag ree that, pursuant to Ba rr , the c la ims in Ramir e z’s se c on d laws uit ari se fr om t he same subject matter as the claims asser ted in the 2005 lawsuit. Se e Ba rr , 837 S.W. 2d a t 630. B a se d o n h is04
- 07
- 00 72 7- CV

- 8- ple a din g s r e late d to the “ se c on d v ic tim iza tio n, ” Ramir e z mai nt ains that th e Churc h, awa re of his

“ fr a g ile me nta l st a te ” and the de va statin g e ff

e c ts that r e c a lli ngthe se xua l a bu se wo uld

have on him , ag ain abuse d him when they asked him to testify

at the 2004 def

rockment procee ding. T he re ason for his fr ag ile mental state wa s due to the 1982 abuse. His pleading s also ref ere nce a “fiduc iary

or specia l relationship” that existed betwee n Ramirez and the Church, a lso appare ntly stemming fr om the 1982 abuse . Acc ording ly , we c onclude the f acts of both l aw s u i t s are related in “time, spac e, orig in, and mot ivation” and “take n toge ther, they form a c onvenient trial unit.” Se e Ba rr , 837 S.W .2d at 6 3 1 (q u o t i n g R EST A T EM EN T O F J UD GME NT S § 24(2)) . I f the c laims arise out of the sa me subject matter a nd can be broug ht toge ther, they cannot be asser

ted sepa rate ly
. Hallco Tex., I

nc. v. M cMullen County, 221 S.W .3d 50, 59 (Tex. 2006). Fur ther, Ramirez’s claims related to the 2004 defr ockment proce eding wer e mature at the time he f iled the 2005 lawsuit, and cer tainly at the time the summary judgme nt motion was heard. Moreove r, there is no valid rea son to subject t he Church to two diff ere nt lawsuits. Se e Ba rr , 837 S.W .2d at 629 (noting that the policies behind res judicata “ ref lect the ne ed to bringall litigation to an end, pr event ve x atious liti g ation, maintain stability of cour t decisions, promote judicial
ec o n o m y , an d preve nt double rec overy”). The only fac tual alleg ations in the second law suit not intertwined with the a

buse that occ urre d in 1982 is Ramire z’s c laim that an ora l contrac t was for med
re la te d to the de fr oc kme nt pr oc e e din g and the Churc h’ s a g re e me nt t o ta ke c are of him and his fa mil y afte r testifying. Howeve r, the defr ockment proce eding arose from and was closely related to the 1982 abuse a nd attempted settlement of that abuse. B eca use he c ould hav e, with due dilige nce, br oug ht the “se cond victimization” claims in the 2005 lawsuit, res j udicata ba rs Ramirez from “two bites at the apple.” Ba rr , 837 S.W .2d at 631.04
- 07
- 00 72 7- CV

- 9- Is Ram irez’s Request for Dec laratory Judgm ent Barred? Ramir e z’s Se c on d A me nd e d Co un te rc la im s ou g ht “a decla ratio n th a t th e [198 5] r e le a se ag ree ment, including the rele ase a nd nondisclosure provisions which se rve as the basis of the Churc h Def endants’ c ounterc laims, is unenfor cea ble and/or void.” Ramirez also sought attorney s’ fe es and costs pursuant to the De clar atory J udg ments Act. See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 37.009 (Ve rnon 2008). The Church’s motion for summary judgme nt asserte d that (1) c ollatera l estoppel bars Ramirez f rom asser ting that the 1985 settlement ag ree ment is une nforc eable and/or void, and (2) the De c larator

y Judg me nt A c t c ann ot b e inv ok e d to de te rm ine ri g hts in a pe nd ingsu it. Collateral estoppe l, also known as issue pre clusion, is more narr ow than res judicata. Av ila v. St. Luke’

s Lutheran Hosp. , 948 S.W .2d 841, 847-48 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 1997, writ denied). Col la te ra l e sto pp e l ba

rs on ly the re lit ig a tio n o f i de nti c a l is su e s o f f a c t or law that w e re a c tua lly litigated a nd essential to the judg ment in a prior suit. Id. Mo re sp e c if ic a lly , th e do c tr ine e xten ds on ly to those issues that w ere either expressly deter mined or nec essar ily

deter mined in an adjudication and not to those matters which might have been, but we re not, ra ised and a djudicated ther ein. Se e Ba rr, 83 7 S. W
. 2 d

a t6 2 8
. O n c e ana c tu a l l y l i t i g a t e d an d e s s e n t i a l i s s u e i s d e t e r

m i n e d , t h a ti s s u e is conclusive in a

subsequent ac tion between the same pa rties. Va n Dy k

e v . B os we ll, O’ Too le

, D av is & Picke ring, 697 S. W.2 d 3 81 , 3 84 (T e x. 19 85 ). Th e fo llo wi nge le me nts are ne c e ssa ry to e sta bli sh
c oll a te ra l e st op pel : (1) the f a c ts s ou g ht t o b e lit ig a te d in the se c on d a c tio n w e re fu lly and fa ir ly litigated in the pr ior ac tion; (2) those fac ts w ere essential to the judgme nt in the f irst action; and (3) the par ties were cast a s adver saries in the f irst action. Av ila , 948 S.W .2d at 848. Ramir e z co nte nd s that his c la ims are no t pr e c lud e d b y c oll a te ra l e sto pp e l be c a

us e the pr e c ise issues in the second lawsuit—whether the rele ase and confide ntiality provisions a re v o i d an d /or04
- 07
- 00 72 7- CV

- 10- u n e n f o r c e a b le

— w e r e n o t a d

ju d ic a te d in th e 2 0 0 5 la

w s u it
. T h e Chu r c h r e s p o n d s th a t those issues
wer e, in fa c t, p r e viously

adjudicate d when the tr ial court g rante d summary judgme nt on its affirmative de fe ns e s o f s e ttl e me nt a

nd re le a se . A lth ou g h Ra

mi rez do es no t st a te on

wh a t ba sis he no w c la ims the settlement ag ree ment is void, the Church point s to Ramirez’s response to reque sts for disclosure, wh e re he ans we re d th a t th e se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt i s “ un e nf or c e a ble du e to dure ss a

nd be c a us e plaintiff lacke d the capa city to c ontrac t at the time the ag ree ment was sig ned. . . [t] he ag ree ment was also procur ed by

fra ud, violates public policy and is illeg al.” We ag ree that these issues wer e decide d in the 2005 lawsuit, where Ramirez simi larly asser ted that he wa s of unsound mind at t h e ti me the settlement a g ree ment was sig ned. The Church then soug ht summary

judgme nt on the g rounds that Ram i re z ’s claims wer e bar red a s a re sult of a pre ex i s t i n g settlement ag ree ment and ar g ued that the r elea se wa s valid on its face ; the trial court g rante d summary judgme nt and this court af firmed the judg ment. See R amirez v. M ansour , 2 0 0 7 WL 2187103, at *3, *6 (holdi ng that exclusion of ex pert testimony that Ramirez was inca

pacitate d when he sig ned the 1985 se ttlement ag ree ment left Ramirez wi t h no evidenc e of unsound mind, and there fore, t h e C h u rc h est ablished its rig ht to judgment as a matter of la

w on the issue of r elea se). Fur thermore , decla

ratory relief would have been i n ap p ro priate in this case , wher e Ramirez soug ht resolution of a dispute a lrea dy pending befor e the c ourt. Se e BH P P e tro le um Co. , I

nc . v . M illar d , 800 S.W. 2d 83 8, 84 1 ( Te x. 19 90 ) ( ho ldi ngthat the De c la ra tor y Judg me nts Ac t is “ no t ava ila ble to s e ttl e disputes alrea dy

pending befor e a c ourt”).C ONCL US I ON We c on clud e the Churc h me t it s b ur de n o f c on c lus ive ly e sta bli sh ingthe e le me nts of

its aff irmative def

enses of res judicata and/or c ollatera l estoppel, and established its right to judgme nt04
- 07
- 00 72 7- CV

- 11- as a matter of law. Acc ording ly , we affirm the trial court’s order g rantingsummary judgme nt in favor of the Churc h. Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice