Mark P. Hardwick, Individually and D/B/A Mark P. Hardwick Oil and Gas Properties and Mark P. Hardwick, LLC v. Smith Energy Company, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Smith Energy Resource Oil, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and on Behalf of Smith Energy Partners I, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 9, 2015
Docket07-15-00083-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Mark P. Hardwick, Individually and D/B/A Mark P. Hardwick Oil and Gas Properties and Mark P. Hardwick, LLC v. Smith Energy Company, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Smith Energy Resource Oil, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and on Behalf of Smith Energy Partners I, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership (Mark P. Hardwick, Individually and D/B/A Mark P. Hardwick Oil and Gas Properties and Mark P. Hardwick, LLC v. Smith Energy Company, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Smith Energy Resource Oil, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and on Behalf of Smith Energy Partners I, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mark P. Hardwick, Individually and D/B/A Mark P. Hardwick Oil and Gas Properties and Mark P. Hardwick, LLC v. Smith Energy Company, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Smith Energy Resource Oil, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and on Behalf of Smith Energy Partners I, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, (Tex. 2015).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 07-15-00083-CV SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS 9/9/2015 5:05:30 PM Vivian Long, Clerk

No. 07-15-00083-CV

IN THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN 7th COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS AMARILLO, TEXAS 9/9/2015 5:05:30 PM MARK P. HARDWICK, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A VIVIAN LONG CLERK MARK P. HARDWICK OIL AND GAS PROPERTIES AND MARK P. HARDWICK, LLC, Appellants, v. SMITH ENERGY COMPANY, ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF SMITH ENERGY RESOURCE OIL, LTD., A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND ON BEHALF OF SMITH ENERGY PARTNERS I, LTD., A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellees.

On Appeal from the 121st District Court, Terry County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19,490; The Honorable Rick Morris, Presiding

BRIEF OF APPELLANTS

BECK REDDEN LLP David M. Gunn State Bar No. 08621600 dgunn@beckredden.com Chad Flores State Bar No. 24059759 cflores@beckredden.com Erin H. Huber State Bar No. 24046118 ehuber@beckredden.com 1221 McKinney, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010-2010 (713) 951-3700 (713) 951-3720 (Fax) COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS

Oral Argument Requested IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Appellants: Mark P. Hardwick, Individually and d/b/a Mark P. Hardwick Oil and Gas Properties, and Mark P. Hardwick, LLC

Counsel for Appellants: David M. Gunn State Bar No. 08621600 dgunn@beckredden.com Chad Flores State Bar No. 24059759 cflores@beckredden.com Erin H. Huber State Bar No. 24046118 ehuber@beckredden.com BECK REDDEN LLP 1221 McKinney, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010 (713) 951-3700 (713) 951-3720 (Fax)

1890.001/55701 Appellees: Smith Energy Company, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Smith Energy Resource Oil, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and on Behalf of Smith Energy Partners I, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership

Counsel for Appellees: Rusty Hardin State Bar No. 08972800 rustyhardin@rustyhardin.com Ryan K. Higgins State Bar No. 24007362 rhiggins@rustyhardin.com Jeremy Monthy State Bar No. 24073240 jmonthy@rustyhardin.com Lara Hollingsworth State Bar 00796790 lhollingsworth@rustyhardin.com Carolyn P. Courville State Bar No. 24007042 ccourville@rustyhardin.com RUSTY HARDIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP 1401 McKinney Street, Suite 2250 Houston, Texas 77010 (713) 652-9000 (713) 652-9800 (Fax)

Trial Court: Hon. Rick Morris Judge, 121st District

1890.001/55701

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .......................................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................................ vii

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .........................................................................................xv

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ........................................................... xvi

ISSUES PRESENTED ................................................................................................. xvii

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................2

STANDARD OF REVIEW..............................................................................................11

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................................................................................12

ARGUMENT ...............................................................................................................13

I. THE CONTRACT AND THEFT THEORIES SHOULD BE REVERSED. ..........13

A. The Fusselman contract recovery should be reversed. .............13

1. The Fusselman part of the contract recovery should be reversed and rendered, because Hardwick did not breach any of the Fusselman contracts, let alone all of them. .......................................14

2. The Fusselman part of the contract recovery should be reversed and rendered, because no overcharge damages resulted from any breach. .............17

3. Alternatively, the Fusselman contract recovery should be reversed and remanded because of charge error. ....................................................................18

iii B. The Bad Billy contract recovery should be reversed. ...............22

1. The contract (PX-85) is not ambiguous..........................22

2. The statute of frauds applies to the Bad Billy claim................................................................................23

C. There is no theft, and even if there were, the statute of limitations would still bar almost all of the theft recovery. ......26

1. The statute of limitations bars recovery. ........................27

2. Breach of a contract should not be theft. ........................29

II. THE TORT THEORIES SHOULD BE REVERSED. ......................................30

A. There is no breach of fiduciary duty. ........................................30

1. There is no joint venture, as the parties carefully disclaimed any joint venture in writing. .........................31

2. There is no agency, because the parties disclaimed it. .....................................................................................33

3. The contracts have legal effect. ......................................34

B. There is no fraud. ......................................................................37

1. The fraudulent inducement aspect of the claim fails because it lacks legally and factually sufficient evidence. .........................................................38

2. The rest of the fraud claim is flawed. .............................40

III. THE ADDITIONAL REMEDIES—$5 MILLION IN FORFEITURE, $3.5 MILLION IN FEES, $750,000 IN INTEREST ON THE FORFEITURE, AND PARTIAL RESCISSION—ARE IMPROPER. .......................................42

A. The $5 million forfeiture award is improper. ...........................42

1. There is no underlying tort to support forfeiture. ...........42

iv 2. Even if forfeiture were available—so that Hardwick had to “return” his “compensation”—the working interests never came from Smith and were not compensation. ...........................................................43

3. The forfeiture award rests on inaccurate factual findings. ..........................................................................44

4. The forfeiture amount is too large. .................................45 5. The forfeiture cannot be saved as restitution and rescission for fraud. ........................................................46

B. The attorney’s fees should be reduced or eliminated. ..............48

1. A reversal of the underlying damages will require either a rendition or remand on attorney’s fees. .............48

2. Smith failed to segregate fees between recoverable and non-recoverable claims. ...........................................49 3. There is no evidence that the hours worked by Smith’s lawyers were necessary. ....................................53

C. The judgment wrongly stacks remedies: Smith cannot have both the $5 million in disgorgement and the $3.5 million in fees............................................................................56 D. The rescission remedy is improper. ..........................................58 E. Interest on forfeiture. ................................................................58

IV. LLC Should Recover Fees Because It Prevailed on the Theft Claim.

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

Bay Colony, Ltd. v. Trendmaker, Inc.
121 F.3d 998 (Fifth Circuit, 1997)
Howard v. Sony Music BMG Entertainment
293 F. App'x 350 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)
Sylvester Hoffart v. Hal Wiggins
406 F. App'x 834 (Fifth Circuit, 2010)
In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Long Trusts v. Griffin
222 S.W.3d 412 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. v. Urista
211 S.W.3d 753 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
In Re Bank One, N.A.
216 S.W.3d 825 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Varner v. Cardenas
218 S.W.3d 68 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Gym-N-I Playgrounds, Inc. v. Snider
220 S.W.3d 905 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Quigley v. Bennett
227 S.W.3d 51 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc. v. Beyer
235 S.W.3d 704 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Bowden v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
247 S.W.3d 690 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)
Fairfield Insurance Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP
246 S.W.3d 653 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)
Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare, L.P. v. Hawley
284 S.W.3d 851 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
Ingram v. Deere
288 S.W.3d 886 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Marketing on Hold Inc.
308 S.W.3d 909 (Texas Supreme Court, 2010)
Thota v. Young
366 S.W.3d 678 (Texas Supreme Court, 2012)
Haase v. Glazner
62 S.W.3d 795 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
Crown Life Insurance Company v. Casteel
22 S.W.3d 378 (Texas Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mark P. Hardwick, Individually and D/B/A Mark P. Hardwick Oil and Gas Properties and Mark P. Hardwick, LLC v. Smith Energy Company, on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Smith Energy Resource Oil, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, and on Behalf of Smith Energy Partners I, Ltd., a Texas Limited Partnership, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-p-hardwick-individually-and-dba-mark-p-hardwick-oil-and-gas-texcrimapp-2015.