C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
KAREN F OL EY, Ap pe lla nt,
v. MARK G. DANI ELand TI M MOORE, Ap pe lle e s. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 01 88 -C V

Appea l from the 348th J udicial District Court of Ta rr ant C ounty , T e xas (TC# 348-209925-05)

O P I N I O N This is an appea l from the g rantingof a tra ditional moti on for summary judgme nt and
no -e vid e nc e mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt i n a

su it a lle g ingbr e a c h o f c ontr a c t and un jus t enric hment by

attorney s who wer e re tained to make a citizen’s presentation to the gr and jury
. We a ff ir m in pa rt and re ve rs e and

re mand in p art . Appellant re tained Appe llees in J anuar y 2002 to make a c itiz en’s pr esentation to the g rand jury

in hopes of obtainingan indictment of Nia Umoja, who wa s involved in a cre dit card scam that de fra

uded Appe llant’s business. Ms. Foley stated in her a ffidavit that the a g ree ment was that the pr esentation would be made in Apr il or May of 2002, but no later tha

n J une 2002. Ap pe lle e s st ate that th e re wa s n o ti me fr ame by wh ic h to make the pr e se ntatio n. Ap pe lla nt p a id
a non-r efunda

ble re tainer of

$25,000 for the se rvice s. Appellee s obtained files fr om the District Attorney ’s offic e re g ardingMs. Foley ’s ca se. Appe llees also hire d an investig ator, F red Pe nd e rgra f, to h e lp f

ind e vid e nc e of

the c a se . App e lle e s inte rv ie we d Jea nit a Mo or e , who ha d a ll
re ady p l ea d gu i l ty i nth i s ca s e, b y

fi rs tat t emp t i n g t o v i s i twi thh er i nj ai l , an d

th en b y o b t ai n i n g a-2-

bench w arr ant. Appellee s met with a repr esentative from B ank One to familiarize themselves with the cre dit and debit car d sy stem. They also obtained two grand jury subpoenas to be issued for doc uments that were not initi ally produce d in the District Attorney ’s g rand jury prese ntment. In J anuar y 2003, Ms. Foley

terminated the repr esentation ag ree ment with Appellees. A fter the termination, Appellee s returne d $3,000 to Ms. Foley , and provide d her w ith copies of Mr . Pe nd e rgra f’ s r e po rt s. Ap pe lla nt b ro ug ht s uit

a lle g ingbr e a c h o f c ontr a c t, q ua ntum me ru it, and

un jus t enric hment. The trial c ourt g rante d Appellee s’ traditional motion for summary judgme nt and no-evide nce motion for summar y judgme nt. On appea l, Appellant ar gues (1) the trial cour t erre d in gr antingthe traditional motion for summary judgme nt beca

use Appe llees’ f

ailed to neg ate at least one e lement of e ach c ause of action and did not conc lusively establish any

aff irmative de fe ns e , a nd (2 ) i mpr op e rl y

g ra nte d th e no e vid e nc e summa ry jud g me nt m oti on

be c a us e Ap pe lla nt p re se nte d s uf

fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to e sta

bli shhe r c la ims
. In I ssue One, A

ppellant ar gues the trial c ourt err ed in g rantingthe traditional motion for summary judgme nt. In I ssue Two, Appe llant argues the trial c ourt improperly g rante d the noe vid e nc e summa

ry jud g me nt m oti on . We re vie w a summa ry jud g me nt de novo
. Valence Op e ra ting Co . v . D or

se tt , 164 S.W .3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). The tra ditional summ ary judgme nt standard a sks whether

the movant ca

rried the burden of

showingthat there is no ge nuine issue of materia l fac t, so that judgment should be grante d as a matter of law
. Di v e rsi c ar e Ge n. Pa rtn e r, In c . v . R ub io , 1 85 S.W. 3d 84 2, 84 6 ( Te x. 20 05 ). We c on sid e r a ll e vid e nc e in t he light m os t favor able to the non- movant, indulgingever y rea sonable infe renc e in favor of the non- movant and re solving a

ny doubt ag ainst the motion. Goodye ar Tire & Rubber Co. v. May es , 236 S.W .3d-3-

754, 756 (Tex. 2007). We also consider whether rea sonable a

nd fair- minded jurors could diff er in their conc lusions in l ight of all the evidenc e pre sented. Id . at 755. Where a trial court doe s no t sp e c if y the g ro un ds up on

wh ic h it re lie d in g ra nti nga summa ry jud g me nt, we wi ll a ff

ir m if any g round is meritorious. See H arwell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 896 S.W .2d 170, 173 (Tex. 1995). In revie winga no-e vidence motion for summary judgme nt, we must disreg ard a ll contrary evidenc e and inf

ere nces, a nd revie w the evide nce in the lig ht most favorable to the non-movants. King Ranch, Inc. v . Chapman , 1 18 S.W. 3d 74 2, 75 1 ( Te x. 20 03 ). Th e mov ingpa rt y mus t specific ally

state the e lements as to which ther e is no evidenc e. Gray v . W oo dv ille He alt

h Ca re Center , 2 25 S.W. 3d

61 3, 61 6 ( Te x.Ap p. -- El Pa so 20 06 , p e t de nie d) ; see T EX .R.C IV .P. 166a(i). T h e b urd en th en s h i ft s t o th e n o n -m o v an t s t o p ro d u ce s um m ary

j u d gm en tev i d en ce ra i s i n g a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t reg ardingeac h element c halleng ed. Gray , 2 2 5 S
. W . 3 d at6 1 6
. If the non-movants produc e more than a sc intill a of e vidence reg ardingthe cha lleng ed ele ment, a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t is raised. Id . L ess than a sc intill a of e vidence exis ts if the evidenc e is so wea

k as to cre ate no more than a mer e surmise or suspicion. King Ranch, Inc. , 118 S.W .3d at 751. Howe ver, when the e vidence rises to a leve l that enables r easona ble minds to differ in their conc lusions, then more than a sc intill a of e vidence exis ts. Id . I f the nonmov ants do no t pr od

uc e mor e tha

n a sc int ill a of e vid e nc e to r a ise a

g e nu ine iss ue of

mate ri a l f

a c t, the trial cour

t “must” g rant the motion. SeeT EX .R.C IV .P. 166a(i). Th e e le me nts of

a c la im f or br e a c h o f c ontr a c t are : ( 1) the e xiste nc e of a va lid c ontr a c t; (2) pe rfor mance or tende red pe rfor mance by the plaintiff; (3) br eac h of the c ontrac t by the defe ndant; and (4) damag es to the plaintiff re sulting fr om that brea ch. Abraxas Petroleum Corp.-4-

v . H or nb ur g , 20 S.W .3d 741, 758 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2000, no pet.) . Plaintiff failed to provide any evidenc e of a

brea ch of the contra ct by the Def endants. Plaintiff’s F irst Amended Or igina l Petition allege s the Def

endants bre ache d their agree ment with Plainti ff by not perfor

ming the service s contemplated unde r the a g ree ment and not per formingthe servic es in a wor kmanlike
manner . The pe tition also st ates De fenda nts failed to timely

or prope rly

perf orm the ser

vices. Ap pe lla nt’ s a ff ida vit state s th at th e a g re e me nt w a s th at th e ind ic tme nt c a se wo uld be pr e se nte d in April, May , or June of 2002. Howeve r, the letter ag ree ment shows no date by which the indictment was to be pe rfor med. Additionally , Ms. Foley is the one who ter

minated the ser

vices of Mr. Moore and Mr. Da niel. Be cause Appellant did not produce any evidenc e that Appe llees brea ched the contra ct or showe d there was a g enuine issue of

fac t as to the brea ch of c ontrac t element, the tr ial court prope rly g rante d summary

judgme nt on the brea ch of c ontrac t claim. I ssues One a

nd Two as they

perta in to the brea ch of c ontrac t cause of ac tion are ove rruled. Quantum meruit is an equitable theory of re cover

y intended to pre vent unjust enrichment when ther e is an implied agree ment to pay for g oods or servic es provided. Vortt Exploration Co., Inc. v. Che vron U.S.A., I nc. , 787 S.W .2d 942, 944 (Tex. 1990). Gene rally , a par ty may rec over unde r quantum meruit only when ther e is a va lid contrac t cover ing the service s or materia l furnished. Id . Unjust enrichment, is not an indepe ndent ca use of a ction but rather
c ha ra c te ri zes the re su lt o f a

fa ilure to m ake re sti tut ion of be ne fi ts e ith e r wro ng fu lly or pa ssi ve ly
rec eived unde r circ umstances that g ive rise to an implied or qua si-contra ctual oblig ation to repa y . W alker v . Cotter Props., Inc., 18 1 S. W.3 d 8 95 , 9 00 (T e x.Ap p. -- Da lla s 2 00 6, no pe t.) . In s ome circ umstances, ove rpay

ments under a

valid contra ct may

g ive rise to a c laim for re stitut ion or unjust enrichment. See Southwestern Ele c. Power Co. v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co. , 966-5-

S.W .2d 467, 469-70 (Te x . 1998). In this case, Appe llees per formed some work unde r the contra ct but did not complete it. There was no testimony as to the value of the ser

vices re ndere d in the partial pe rfor

mance . Ms. Foley ’s af

fidavit stated that minimal amount of work ha d been completed by

Appellee s. The ac countingrec eived by Ms. Foley

shows pay

ments rec eived totaling $25,000 f

or leg al fe es, expenses totaling$2,765.55, and fe es re funded of $1,500 by

eac h Mr. Moore a

nd Mr. Danie l. A fee is not earne d simply beca use it is designated as nonref undable. Te x .Comm. on P rof’ l Ethics, Op. 431, 49 T EX . B.J. 1084-85 (1986). “ Upon te rm inatio n o f r e pr e se ntatio n, a lawye r s ha ll t ake ste ps to t he e xtent r e a so na

bly pr a c tic a ble to protec t a client’s inter ests, such as . . . r efundingany advanc e pay

ments of fe e that has not be en ear ned.” T EX .R.D I S C I PL I NAR Y P. 1.15(d), re pr inte d in T EX .G OV ’ T C ODE ANN ., tit. 2, subt it. G Ap p. A, art . 1 0, § 9 (V e rn on 20 05 ). Ms. F ole y

ra ise d a g e nu ine iss ue of

mate ri a l f

a c t a s to wh e the r o r n ot t

he se rv ic e s p ro vid e d b y

Ap pe lle e s e arn e d th e e nti re $2 5, 00 0 f e e . We su sta in Appellant’s I ssues One a

nd Two as they

perta in to the quantum meruit and unjust enrichme nt
c la ims
. We a ff

ir m th e g ra nti ngof summa ry jud g me nt o f t

he br e a c h o f c ontr a c t c la im a nd re ve rs e and re mand on the qu a ntum me ru it a

nd un jus t e nr ic hme nt c la ims fo r t ri a l. October 15, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.