Court Opinion

ID: 9680217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:26:06.272872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:26.881443
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
concurring.
The majority opinion addresses more than is necessary for a final disposition of this appeal. I concur in the result reached by the majority but on different and more concise bases.
First, National Café has consistently defended the validity of the non-compete agreement as an enforceable agreement. This is a valid defense, not a claim for affirmative relief, to Podaras’s suit for declaratory judgment, including the motion for partial summary judgment which sought a judgment declaring that the non-compete agreement is unenforceable. Because our action in either affirming or reversing the trial court’s order granting partial summary judgment would affect substantial rights of the parties, a live controversy exists; and the validity of the summary judgment declaring the agreement to be unenforceable is not moot. See Pinnacle Gas Treating, Inc. v. Read, 104 S.W.3d 544, 545 (Tex.2003).
Second, the non-compete agreement is part of a larger agreement between the parties that is over 60 pages in length and contains many other terms, provisions, and obligations. It is ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement. See Light v. Centel Cellular Co., 883 S.W.2d 642, 647 (Tex.1994).
The proper remedy, for overbreadth, if any, of the non-compete agreement is reformation, not a declaration that it is unenforceable. Tex. Bus. & COMMERCE Code Ann. § 15.51 (Vernon 2002). And I find no other basis upon which the trial court could have based its judgment.
Because the trial court erred by rendering judgment that the agreement was unenforceable without reforming the agreement as required by statute, the trial court erred. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment reversing and remanding this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.