Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. v. AMKO Resources International, LLC and John I. Myung

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 15, 2014
Docket14-13-00113-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. v. AMKO Resources International, LLC and John I. Myung (Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. v. AMKO Resources International, LLC and John I. Myung) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. v. AMKO Resources International, LLC and John I. Myung, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

July 15, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals BREWER & PRITCHARD, P.C., Appellant

NO. 14-13-00113-CV V.

AMKO RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, LLC AND JOHN I. MYUNG, Appellee ________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the summary judgments in favor of appellees, AMKO Resources International, LLC (“AMKO”) and Dr. John I. Myung, signed November 12, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record.

With regard to the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Myung, we have inspected the record and find the trial court erred when it granted Dr. Myung’s motion for summary judgment because (1) the one satisfaction rule does not apply to B&P’s conversion claim and (2) punitive damages are still at issue in B&P’s tortious interference and conspiracy claims.

We therefore order that the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Myung is REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings in accordance with this court’s opinion.

With regard to the summary judgment in favor of AMKO, we have inspected the record and find the trial court erred when it granted AMKO’s motion for summary judgment because (1) the one satisfaction rule does not apply to B&P’s conversion claim; (2) punitive damages are still at issue in B&P’s tortious interference and conspiracy claims; (3) AMKO did not conclusively negate B&P’s claim that AMKO converted the personal property that was conveyed to AMKO in paragraph 1(d) of the PSA; (4) AMKO did not conclusively establish that it was entitled to summary judgment on res judicata grounds; and (5) AMKO did not conclusively establish that it was entitled to summary judgment on justification grounds.

Further, we find no error in the remainder of the summary judgment in favor of AMKO, namely that portion of the summary judgment disposing of B&P’s claim that AMKO converted (1) the oil and gas leasehold interests and working interests conveyed under the PSA and (2) the money allegedly owed to B&P by virtue of the PSA.

We therefore order that the summary judgment in favor of AMKO is REVERSED in part and AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED for proceedings in accordance with this court’s opinion.

We order appellee, AMKO Resources International, LLC and Dr. John I. Myung, jointly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. v. AMKO Resources International, LLC and John I. Myung, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brewer-pritchard-pc-v-amko-resources-international-texapp-2014.