Villarreal v. Ramirez

• Docket Number: 04-22-00563-CV
• Decision Date: 03 January 2024
• Citation: Villarreal v. Ramirez, 685 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. App. 2024)
• Parties: Roberto VILLARREAL, Ramona Villarreal, Viola Villarreal Garcia, and Gloria Villarreal Salinas, Appellants v. Javier RAMIREZ, AS CO-TRUSTEE OF the RAMIREZ MINERAL TRUST; Sonia Rodriguez, as Co-Trustee of the Ramirez Mineral Trust; Victor M. Ramirez, as Co-Trustee of the Ramirez Mineral Trust; Santiago Ramirez Jr., as Co-Trustee of the Ramirez Mineral Trust; Sonia Rodríguez, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; Blas Garza III, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; Priscilla Garza Lozano, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; All Unknown Heirs of the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; Sonia Rodriguez, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; Blas Garza III, Individually as Co-Executor of the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; Priscilla Garza Lozano, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; and Javier Ramirez, Appellees
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

685 S.W.3d 868

Roberto VILLARREAL, Ramona Villarreal, Viola Villarreal Garcia, and Gloria Villarreal Salinas, Appellants

v.Javier RAMIREZ, AS CO-TRUSTEE OF the RAMIREZ MINERAL TRUST; Sonia Rodriguez, as Co-Trustee of the Ramirez Mineral Trust; Victor M. Ramirez, as Co-Trustee of the Ramirez Mineral Trust; Santiago Ramirez Jr., as Co-Trustee of the Ramirez Mineral Trust; Sonia Rodríguez, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; Blas Garza III, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; Priscilla Garza Lozano, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; All Unknown Heirs of the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; Sonia Rodriguez, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; Blas Garza III, Individually as Co-Executor of the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; Priscilla Garza Lozano, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Blas Garza Jr.; and Javier Ramirez, Appellees

No. 04-22-00563-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

Delivered and Filed: January 3, 2024

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas, Trial Court No. 5,937, Honorable José A. L?pez, Judge Presiding

APPELLANT ATTORNEY: Minerva I. Zamora, Ellis, Koeneke & Ramirez, LLP, 1101 Chicago Ave., McAllen, TX 78501, Francisco Guerra IV, Watts Guerra, LLP, 4 Dominion Dr., Bldg. I-100, San Antonio, TX 78257

APPELLEE ATTORNEY: Carlos M. Zaffirini, Guadalupe Castillo, Zaffirini & Castillo, 1407 Washington St., Laredo, TX 78040-4411

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice, Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice, Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

OPINION

Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

In this dispute involving proceeds from oil and gas leases, Appellants argue the trial court erred by granting Appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing the case. Appellants contend they have live claims, their claims are not barred by res judicata, and their quasi-admissions did not negate the trial court’s jurisdiction.

Appellees argue that the trial court’s Agreed Final Judgment was final, it disposed of all parties and all claims, and the trial court could have granted their plea based on standing, mootness, judicial admissions, or "finality of judgments."

Because Appellants met their burden to plead facts showing the trial court’s jurisdiction, and none of the grounds in Appellees’ plea negated the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand this cause.

Background

The underlying dispute over the ownership of surface and mineral estates, leases, and proceeds has involved multiple parties, suits, claims, and defenses. For purposes of this appeal, we limit our recitation of facts to those that pertain to the issues now before us.

A. Parties¹

Appellants, who are now plaintiffs below, are members of the Villarreal family: Roberto Villarreal, Ramona Villarreal, Viola Villarreal Garcia, and Gloria Villarreal Salinas (collectively the Roberto Group).

Appellees, who are now defendants below, include members of the Ramirez family, primarily those who are co-trustees of the Ramirez Mineral Trust, and others (collectively the Ramirezes).

Earlier defendants included Chesapeake Zapata, L.P. and Chesapeake Operating, Inc. (collectively Chesapeake).

B. Original Suit (5937)

In 2002, an oil and gas production company executed a lease with the Ramirez Mineral Trust for about 734 acres, and that lease was later assigned to Chesapeake. Chesapeake drilled two wells on property it understood it had leased, but the Villarreals claimed the wells were sited on their property.

In April 2005, members of the Villarreal family sued Chesapeake, the Ramirez Min- eral Trust, and members of the Ramirez family; the suit was assigned cause number 5937. Two of the Villarreal plaintiffs were Gloria Villarreal Salinas and Viola Villarreal Garcia. In June 2007, Roberto and Ramona Villarreal intervened.

In a hearing on August 31, 2010, the plaintiffs and intervenors confirmed that "[w]e seek not a penny from the Ramirezes … and it’s a stipulation on this case."

A few weeks later, the plaintiffs filed their seventh amended petition, and the intervenors filed their second amended plea in intervention. The pleadings identified Chesapeake, the Ramirezes, and others as defendants; they included claims for trespass to try title, trespass to real property, conversion, constructive trust, enhanced value damages, attorney’s fees, accounting, and violation of the Natural Resources Code.

C. Settlement Agreement

After some negotiations, the plaintiffs and intervenors who controlled more than 98% of the mineral interests reached an agreement with Chesapeake. On January 26, 2011, in open court, the parties advised the trial court they had reached an agreement, and it was read into the record.

Under the settlement agreement, Chesapeake was to lease about 1,600 acres from the Villarreals for a period of ten years with a 22.5% royalty and a bonus of about $2.5 million. The agreement would resolve competing property ownership claims between the Villarreals and the Ramirezes. The Villarreals would execute quit claim deeds to the Ramirezes for a particular sixty-seven-acre tract, and for another approximately 3,718 acres. In turn, the Ramirezes would execute quit claim deeds to the Villarreals for the surface and mineral estates for about 2,024 acres.

D. Actions on Settlement Agreement

In March 2011, Chesapeake sent the Roberto Group proposed leases for the approximately 238 acres the Roberto Group believed it owned. After the Roberto Group learned that they did not own all of the mineral interest in the 238 acres, they advised Chesapeake, and it sent them revised leases covering about 223 acres.

Some of the parties disagreed on how to implement the settlement agreement, but in September 2011, they agreed to mediate, and the court ordered mediation.

E. Status Hearing on Settlement Agreement

On October 4, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on the parties' progress on finalizing the settlement agreement.

The parties proposed some modifications to the settlement agreement. For example, the parties would not execute quit claim deeds; instead, the conveyances would be included in the judgment. The Roberto Group explained that they had conveyed some interest in the 223 acres to another party, their mineral interest was reduced by those conveyances, and their bonus should be reduced accordingly. Chesapeake agreed that the "leases and the consideration would be adjusted proportionately."

After additional colloquy, in concluding the healing, the trial court noted that the judgment would incorporate "the terms of the announcement made on January 2011 and modified only by what was announced here today and agreed to by the parties."

F. Severance Order

After the status hearing, several of the Villarreals, not including those in the Roberto Group, moved to sever their claims against Chesapeake and the Ramirezes. In December 2011, the trial court granted the motion, and the claims for the "Certain Villarreal Plaintiffs-Intervenors" were severed into cause 5937-A.

G. Agreed Final Judgment

On January 18, 2012, the trial court signed a fifty-three-page Agreed Final Judgment.

One of its provisions was that "[t]he settlement agreement will require the signature of all the parties." The Agreed Final Judgment had signature blocks for the Ramirez Mineral Trust trustees, the Ramirez surface owners, and the remaining Villarreal Plaintiffs-Intervenors. It did not have signature blocks for the Roberto Group members, and none of them signed it.

Another provision stated that "the nonsigning parties to this Agreed Final Judgment will be severed into a new cause upon entry of said Agreed Final Judgment and the Court will then proceed to hear and determine the summary judgment motions affecting the non-signing parties."

But the record does not show that the Roberto Group’s claims were severed.

H. Post-Judgment Actions

The Roberto Group criticized the Agreed Final Judgment because it had substantive defects in them property descriptions. It required them to convey interests they did not own, and they did not sign it. But they insist they worked diligently to determine them ownership interests in the acreage to be leased to Chesapeake.

In August 2014, the Roberto Group advised Chesapeake that they had executed a mineral partition deed which finally resolved the mineral interest ownership for their acreage. Them total acreage available to be leased by Chesapeake was now 189.68 acres. The Roberto Group asked Chesapeake "to start preparing the final deeds and lease agreement the Parties agreed upon," but Chesapeake did not.

I. Roberto Group Sues Chesapeake (8848)

In November 2014, the Roberto Group sent Chesapeake a "Presentment of Claim" letter. Without mentioning the Agreed Final Judgment, the letter asserted that the settlement agreement that was read into the record on January 26, 2011, was still in effect, it was a binding contract requiring Chesapeake to lease the Roberto Group’s acreage, and Chesapeake’s failure to do so would be a breach of contract.

The next month, after Chesapeake refused to execute a lease, the Roberto Group sued Chesapeake; the suit was assigned cause number 8848. The Roberto Group’s claims included breach of contract, promissory estoppel, specific performance, and attorney’s fees.

In October 2018, the trial court granted Chesapeake’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment against the Roberto Group’s claims, and the Roberto Group’s attempted appeal was dismissed as untimely. See Villarreal v. Chesapeake Zapata, L.P., No. 04-19-00071-CV, 2019 WL 1370170, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam).

J. Eighth Amended Petition

In September 2019, in cause number 5937, the Roberto Group filed their eighth amended petition against only Chesapeake. The petition included these claims: trespass to try title, trespass to real property, conversion, constructive trust, enhanced value damages, attorney’s fees, accounting, violation of the...