Court Opinion

ID: 9768964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:00:04.398139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:51.305454
License: Public Domain

*923BURGESS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result. However, I do not Ariew this case as one involving the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. TEX.R.CTV.P. 166-A requires that the movant show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues expressly set out in the motion. The movant must show both. I believe there are no genuine issues as to material facts, but that the movant was not entitled to recover as a matter of law. Williamson was not required to prove a material fact issue until Mobil established its entitlement to a summary judgment. Williamson’s failure to raise the issue of attorney’s fees by proper affidavit is of no consequence. The non-moving party has no burden until the moving party establishes its right to a summary judgment. Bankers Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Scott, 631 S.W.2d 228 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1982, Avrit ref d n.r.e.). Since Mobil did not establish its right to summary judgment as a matter of law, i.e., its suspension of royalties was not a breach, the Williamsons were under no obligation to come forth Avith any summary judgment response. Because the majority has properly remanded, I concur.