Snively Royalty Analysis, LLC v. Richard Panchasarp, Individually and as Trustee for the Richard J. Panchasarp Trust ( 2020 )

REVERSE AND REMAND; Opinion Filed April 30, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00577-CV
SNIVELY ROYALTY ANALYSIS, LLC, Appellant
V.
RICHARD PANCHASARP, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE RICHARD J. PANCHASARP TRUST, Appellees
On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-01759
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Reichek
Opinion by Justice Schenck
Snively Royalty Analysis, LLC (“Snively LLC”) appeals the trial court’s take-
nothing judgment in favor of appellees Richard Panchasarp, individually and as
trustee for the Richard J. Panchasarp Trust (“Panchasarp”). In three issues, Snively
LLC urges it provided sufficient evidence to withstand Panchasarp’s no-evidence
motion for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the trial
court’s summary judgment in favor of Panchasarp and remand this case to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because all issues are
settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
BACKGROUND
The factual and procedural background of this case is familiar to the parties
and is discussed in further detail in our Court’s prior opinion. See Panchasarp v.
Snively Royalty Analysis, LLC, No. 05-17-00387-CV, 2018 WL 4103209, at *1
(Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 29, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we will limit
our discussion to the facts necessary to resolve this appeal.
On February 19, 2013, Panchasarp signed an Engagement Letter with Snively
LLC, pursuant to which Snively LLC contracted to review Panchasarp’s current and
past natural gas royalties for any past payment errors in exchange for fifty percent
of the amount recovered. In March 2013, Victoria Snively, as president of Snively
LLC sent to Chesapeake Energy Corporation (“Chesapeake”) a letter that listed the
wells owned by the Panchasarp Trust and advised Chesapeake that Snively LLC had
been retained to review the natural gas royalties for Panchasarp. In May 2013,
Chesapeake sent a check payable to the Panchasarp Trust, and Snively LLC sent an
invoice to Panchasarp for fifty percent of the check amount. Panchasarp paid the
invoiced amount to Snively LLC. No party disputes that the May 2013 check was
generated as a result of Victoria Snively’s March 2013 letter to Chesapeake. In
November 2013, Chesapeake sent another check to Panchasarp. Snively LLC
unsuccessfully attempted to collect fifty percent of the amount of this check from
Panchasarp.
–2–
In February 2014, Snively LLC brought suit against Panchasarp for breach of
contract, and Panchasarp counterclaimed for breach of contract and usury. Both
sides filed motions for traditional summary judgment. In September 2016, the trial
court granted summary judgment in favor of Snively LLC, dismissed with prejudice
Panchasarp’s counterclaim for breach of contract, and stated “[t]he only remaining
issues for the jury to decide are [Snively LLC’s] damages, [Snively LLC’s]
attorney’s fees, and the usury counter-claim. After trial at which the trial court
submitted to the jury only the parties’ attorney fee claims, the trial court signed an
amended final judgment awarding compensatory damages to Snively LLC.1
Panchasarp appealed that final judgment to this Court. We issued an opinion
in which we reversed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Snively LLC
against Panchasarp and remanded the case to the trial court for proceedings
consistent with our opinion. See Panchasarp, 2018 WL 4103209, at *1.
After the issuance of this Court’s prior opinion, Panchasarp filed a motion for
no-evidence summary judgment, arguing that this Court’s opinion held that the prior
1
Snively LLC also sued Hampton Holdings, LLC (“Hampton”) and PF Partners, LLC (“PF Partners”),
asserting both Hampton and PF Partners were parties to the Engagement Letter. The trial court’s judgment
awarded compensatory damages against Panchasarp and Hampton but not PF Partners.
Because this Court concluded in our prior opinion that Hampton was not a party to the Engagement
Letter and rendered judgment that Snively LLC take nothing against Hampton, and Hampton did not appeal
our decision, we need not discuss Hampton any further. See Panchasarp v. Snively Royalty Analysis, LLC,
No. 05-17-00387-CV, 2018 WL 4103209, at *4, 8 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 29, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.).
As for PF Partners, we note that PF Partners did not appeal the trial court’s amended final judgment in
favor of Snively LLC. Accordingly, that judgment is final as to PF Partners, and we need not discuss that
party any further. See id. at *1.
–3–
summary judgment record contained no evidence to support three essential elements
of Snively LLC’s claim for breach of contract. Snively LLC responded, relying
upon “the materials accompanying [its] motion [and] all materials that have been
previously filed or presented as evidence in this Cause.” On February 18, 2019, the
trial court signed an order granting Panchasarp’s no-evidence summary-judgment
motion and granting a take-nothing judgment against Snively LLC. Snively LLC
filed motions for reconsideration and for new trial to which it attached additional
evidence, but the trial court did not rule on either motion. Snively LLC timely filed
its notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
In its first two issues, Snively LLC asks whether this Court’s prior opinion
reversing the trial court’s grant of traditional summary judgment in Snively LLC’s
favor held that Snively LLC had produced legally insufficient evidence such that its
claims could not survive a no-evidence motion for summary judgment. In its third
issue, Snively LLC urges that on remand to the trial court it provided sufficient
evidence to withstand a no-evidence motion for summary judgment as to its claim
for breach of contract.
For both traditional and no-evidence motions, we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Town of Shady Shores v. Swanson, 590
S.W.3d 544, 551 (Tex. 2019). To obtain a traditional summary judgment, a movant
must produce evidence showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that
–4–
it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); id. By
contrast, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i), which governs no-evidence motions
for summary judgment, provides, “The court must grant the motion unless the
respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material
fact.” See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i). The nonmovant may raise a genuine issue of
material fact by producing “more than a scintilla of evidence establishing the
existence of the challenged element.” See Swanson, 590 S.W.3d at 551.
In our prior opinion, we reviewed and ultimately reversed the trial court’s
grant of traditional summary judgment in Snively LLC’s favor on its claim for
breach of contract against Panchasarp. In that appeal, we considered whether
Snively LLC, as the movant for traditional summary judgment, had met its burden
to prove that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that it was entitled of
judgment as a matter of law. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); SeaBright Ins. Co. v.
Lopez, 465 S.W.3d 637, 641 (Tex. 2015). We concluded it had not and that a
genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the sending of the November
check by Chesapeake was the result of Snively LLC’s work.
In concluding there was a genuine issue of material fact, we considered
Victoria Snively’s deposition testimony that she had no personal knowledge of why
Chesapeake decided to make further correction payments in November 2013. We
also considered Victoria Snively’s affidavit in which she testified, “Producers like
Chesapeake Operating will make a series of payments to royalty owners in order to
–5–
accomplish the overall objective of restoring to them the full amount of royalty-
underpayment error.” We noted the record contained an email written by Ben
Panchasarp, Richard Panchasarp’s son, to Chesapeake in June 2013 in which he
inquired regarding the “interests in the Berry wells, Panchasarp wells, all the
Burleson Lakes Wells, and the 1st Baptist Church wells” and stated he “was
concerned because there have been more expenses the last couple of years and . . .
[wasn’t] sure what other things that have been deducted on our proportionate interest
in these wells.”
In this appeal, because we are now reviewing the trial court’s grant of a no-
evidence motion for summary judgment, we review the evidence presented,
crediting evidence favorable to the nonmovant if reasonable jurors could and
disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. See Gonzalez v.
Ramirez, 463 S.W.3d 499, 504 (Tex. 2015). In response to Panchasarp’s no-
evidence motion for summary judgment, Snively LLC relied on “the materials
accompanying this motion; all materials that have been previously filed or presented
as evidence in this Cause.” After conducting our review of the record, we conclude
Snively LLC produced more than a scintilla of evidence that its work caused
Chesapeake to send the November check. See Swanson, 590 S.W.3d at 551. We
further conclude none of the evidence considered by the trial court on remand would
affect our prior opinion’s conclusion that, “a genuine issue of material fact exists as
–6–
to whether the sending of the November checks by Chesapeake to [Panchasarp] was
the result of Snively LLC’s work.” See Panchasarp, 2018 WL 4103209, at *8.
Accordingly, we sustain Snively LLC’s issues.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Richard
Panchasarp, individually and as trustee for the Richard J. Panchasarp Trust, and
remand this case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
/David J. Schenck/
DAVID J. SCHENCK
JUSTICE
190577F.P05
–7–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
SNIVELY ROYALTY ANALYSIS, On Appeal from the 191st Judicial
LLC, Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-01759.
No. 05-19-00577-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Schenck. Justices Osborne and
RICHARD PANCHASARP, Reichek participating.
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE RICHARD J.
PANCHASARP TRUST, Appellees
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is ORDERED that appellant SNIVELY ROYALTY ANALYSIS, LLC
recover its costs of this appeal from appellees RICHARD PANCHASARP,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE RICHARD J. PANCHASARP
TRUST.
Judgment entered this 30th day of April, 2020.
–8–