 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Wright Petroleum Co.11/23/2005
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Rodriguez
This is an appeal from a summary judgment granting declaratory relief and awarding attorney's fees in favor of appellees, Wright Petroleum Co., Inc., d/b/a Wright Petroleum, and William E. Wright, Jr., individually. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 37.002, 37.009 (Vernon 1997). By three issues, appellants, Citgo Petroleum Corporation and Citgo Refining and Chemicals, Inc., contend the following: (1) the trial court erred by granting appellees a declaratory judgment on issues that were pending before the court; (2) the trial court erred by assessing the amount and reasonableness of attorney's fees without presenting these questions to a jury; and (3) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees when there was a material fact issue as to the amount and reasonableness of attorney's fees. We affirm.
I. Background
Both appellants and appellees were named as defendants in the underlying wrongful death and survival action. Appellants then filed a cross-claim against appellees, alleging that appellees had breached their contractual obligation to indemnify and defend them in the underlying suit based on provisions found in a Distributor Franchise Agreement and a Carrier Card Agreement signed by Citgo Petroleum Corporation and Wright Petroleum Co., Inc. Appellees also filed a counterclaim against appellants pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (the Act), seeking a declaratory judgment and attorney's fees. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.§§ 37.002, 37.009. In addition, appellees filed motions for summary judgment on appellants' cross-claim and on their counterclaim. The trial court granted summary judgments in favor of appellees on their motions for summary judgment. As a result of granting declaratory relief in favor of appellees, the trial court awarded appellees attorney's fees. See id. § 37.009.
II. Declaratory Judgment
By their first issue, appellants contend the trial court erred in granting appellees a declaratory judgment on their counterclaim because it raised issues already pending before the court. We disagree.
The purpose of the Act is "to settle and afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations." Id. § 37.002(b). A declaratory judgment is appropriate only if a justiciable controversy exists as to the rights and status of the parties and the controversy will be resolved by the declaration sought. Bonham State Bank v. Beadle, 907 S.W.2d 465, 467 (Tex. 1995). However, the Act is not available to settle disputes already pending before the court. BHP Petroleum Co. v. Millard, 800 S.W.2d 838, 841 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding); Staff Indus., Inc. v. Hallmark Contracting, Inc., 846 S.W.2d 542, 547-48 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1993, no writ). Therefore, a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment is proper only if it is more than a mere denial of and has greater ramifications than the plaintiff's original claim. BHP Petroleum Co., 800 S.W.2d at 842. A counterclaim has greater ramifications than the original suit if it seeks affirmative relief. HECI Exploration Co. v. Clajon Gas Co., 843 S.W.2d 622, 638-39 (Tex. App.-Austin 1992, writ denied). To state a claim for affirmative relief, a counterclaim must allege that the defendant has a cause of action, independent of the plaintiff's claim, on which he could recover benefits, compensation or relief, even if the plaintiff were to abandon his cause of action or fail to establish it. BHP Petroleum Co., 800 S.W.2d at 841. A counterclaim that presents no new controversy, but instead exists solely to pave the way f
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|