White Rock Exploration, Inc. v. Freeman Mills, P.C.
| Decision Date | 05 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | 06-20-00005-CV |
| Citation | 607 S.W.3d 429 |
| Parties | WHITE ROCK EXPLORATION, INC., and Richard L. Clay, Individually, Appellants v. FREEMAN MILLS, P.C., Jason R. Mills, Individually, Vance P. Freeman, Individually, and Graham K. Simms, Individually, Appellees |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Lindsey Rames, Nicole Cawood-Anderson, Rames Law Firm, PC, Dallas, TX, for Appellants.
John R. Mercy, Lead Counsel, Mercy * Carter, LLP, Texarkana, TX, Jason R. Mills, Freeman Mills, PC, Fort Worth, TX, for Appellees.
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
White Rock Exploration, Inc., and Richard L. Clay1 sued Freeman Mills, P.C., Jason R. Mills, Vance P. Freeman, and Graham K. Simms2 for legal malpractice, alleging claims of negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court granted Freeman Mills' no-evidence motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, White Rock contends that the no-evidence motion was not sufficiently specific and that the trial court erred by granting the motion and entering judgment against it on all claims. We find that (1) the no-evidence motion for summary judgment was sufficiently specific and (2) the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. As a result, we affirm the trial court's no-evidence summary judgment.
White Rock Exploration, Inc., is an oil and gas operating company run by its president and majority shareholder, Clay. In December 2013 and January 2014, White Rock contracted with Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. (Palestine), to drill an exploratory well in Limestone County. Jere Alan Pritchett, Palestine's president, served as tool pusher and driller on the project. White Rock determined that Palestine did not have the equipment, personnel, or expertise to drill the well in a workman-like manner and that Pritchett had misrepresented Palestine's capabilities when seeking the contract to drill the well. On January 6, 2014, when Clay was visiting with Pritchett about the project, Pritchett allegedly assaulted Clay in Pritchett's travel trailer at the well site and then falsely informed the Limestone County Sheriff that Clay had attacked Pritchett with a knife. While awaiting the arrival of the sheriff's deputies, Pritchett allegedly staged a scene in his travel trailer to support the false accusation. Clay was later arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
Clay claimed that, on his own behalf and on behalf of White Rock, he consulted with Freeman Mills regarding possible legal action against Palestine and Pritchett and that Freeman Mills erroneously informed him that the statute of limitations for malicious prosecution and slander against Pritchett was two years. Freeman Mills allegedly advised Clay to first sue Palestine and to delay in filing suit on his individual claims against Pritchett. Clay, in alleged reliance on that advice, instructed Freeman Mills to first pursue White Rock's claims against Palestine, to seek an early settlement, and to postpone pursuing his individual claims until the claims against Palestine were resolved.
Freeman Mills thereafter filed suit on behalf of White Rock against Palestine in the 241st Judicial District Court of Smith County.3 In April 2015, White Rock and Palestine mediated their dispute, but failed to settle the case. Following the mediation, Freeman Mills presented White Rock with a fee invoice in the amount of $51,158.25. Clay stated that Freeman Mills advised him, in October 2015, to settle White Rock's claims against Palestine through a mutual release with no payment by either party. Clay settled the lawsuit against Palestine in alleged reliance on Freeman Mills's representation that the statute of limitations on Clay's malicious prosecution and slander claims was two years. Meanwhile, the criminal matter against Clay was "no billed" by the Limestone County Grand Jury, and Pritchett was indicted for tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. On December 30, 2015, Clay discovered that the statute of limitations for malicious prosecution and slander was one year and had passed.
In December 2017, White Rock and Clay sued Freeman Mills, alleging, among other things, that Freeman Mills (1) permitted the statute of limitations to run on Clay's claims of malicious prosecution and slander; (2) made only a cursory effort to seek a settlement with Palestine nine months after the lawsuit was filed, despite Clay's repeated direction to seek an early settlement; (3) presented White Rock with an invoice for legal services totaling $51,158.25 twelve days following the April 2015 mediation between White Rock and Palestine, thereby negatively impacting White Rock's ability to evaluate settlement options; and (4) advised White Rock to settle its claims against Palestine for a mutual release and then proceed with the claims against Pritchett, thereby causing White Rock to settle when it otherwise would not have done so. White Rock's suit against Freeman Mills also alleged that these actions amounted to negligence and negligent misrepresentation and that it was entitled to attorney fees and exemplary damages.
On January 4, 2019, Freeman Mills filed its no-evidence motion for summary judgment. The summary judgment motion stated that, although White Rock appeared to claim "that Defendants negligently advised it to settle and that, but for this negligent advice, White Rock would have won at trial," it had no evidence that the "advice was negligent, that White Rock would have won at trial, or what White Rock's recovery would have been." Freeman Mills also claimed that it never represented Clay, and while Clay appeared to claim that, "but for negligent misrepresentations made by [Freeman Mills], he would have timely filed a lawsuit," he had no evidence "that he would have won that lawsuit or of what his recovery would have been." The motion alleged that White Rock and Clay had the "burden of proving that, ‘but for’ the attorney's breach of duty, the plaintiff would have prevailed on the underlying cause of action and would have been entitled to judgment." The motion asserted that Clay had no evidence on each element of his negligence claim and that White Rock had no evidence of causation or damages for its claim. Finally, the motion alleged that there was no evidence of gross negligence. The trial court set the no-evidence motion for summary judgment for a hearing on March 7, 2019.
On January 22, 2019, White Rock filed its response to the no-evidence motion for summary judgment, which discussed the underlying case and alleged, among other things, that Freeman Mills failed to inform Clay that it would not pursue his individual claims. The response also alleged that, based on Pritchett's false accusation against Clay, Clay was arrested and charged with assault.
On February 14, 2019, White Rock filed an amended response in opposition to the no-evidence motion for summary judgment. This response alleged that, on June 18, 2014, the "Grand Jury no-billed Clay and ... indicted Pritchett for ... tampering with or fabricating physical evidence." On February 28, 2019, White Rock filed its second amended response in opposition to summary judgment, and on November 5, 2019, White Rock filed its third amended response.
Exhibits to White Rock's responses to the summary judgment motion included Clay's affidavit and unsworn declaration,4 in which he testified that Freeman Mills advised him on his personal claims against Pritchett and billed for a meeting with him on June 17, 2014, in which they discussed strategy for adding his personal claims against Pritchett. Freeman Mills never presented Clay with a letter of non-representation and further advised Clay on two separate occasions that the statute of limitations for malicious prosecution and defamation was two years. The most recent of those representations happened on October 19, 2015, at a meeting in which Freeman Mills advised Clay to settle the Palestine lawsuit for a mutual release with no payment by either party. Freeman Mills represented to Clay that the statute of limitations for malicious prosecution and slander was two years and reassured Clay that he could still file suit against Pritchett because the statute on these claims had not yet run. Clay relied on that advice and instructed Freeman Mills to make sure that the wording of the settlement agreement did not release his malicious prosecution or defamation claims. Freeman Mills told Clay that it would file suit on his behalf when he was ready. Clay discussed the ongoing criminal charges against him with Freeman Mills and only did so based on his attorney-client relationship with Freeman Mills.
When, on December 30, 2015, Clay discovered that the statute of limitations on his personal claims was actually one year, he emailed Freeman Mills stating that he was going to file suit before the two-year limitation period they had discussed was up.5 At the time of the settlement, Clay believed that he could still seek recovery through other causes of action, when in reality, those claims were already barred. In an email dated January 4[, 2016], Gus Clardy, an attorney with Freeman Mills, stated, "[I]t looks like [Clay's] claims for malicious prosecution and slander are both out." (Second alteration in original).
As to the underlying claims against Pritchett, Clay testified that Pritchett assaulted him on January 6, 2014, in Pritchett's trailer at the well site. According to Clay, Pritchett then staged a scene in the trailer to support his accusation to law enforcement officers that Clay attacked him with a knife. As a result, Clay was arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. On June 18, 2014, the grand jury no-billed the charges against Clay, and Pritchett was subsequently indicted for tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. Clay stated that...
To continue reading
Request your trial