What is the summary of Boedeker v. Hudson?

The parties disputed whether 1960 mineral deeds conveyed an unburdened one-half mineral interest or an interest burdened by a royalty conveyed in 1959, as well as whether royalties paid under the earlier title interpretation were recoverable through unjust enrichment. The court construed the instruments in favor of the Nordan Parties, rejected the Boedeker Parties’ claimed retained royalty interest, and affirmed both the declaratory relief and unjust-enrichment damages. Applying Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 37.009 and Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, however, the court held that the UDJA did not authorize recovery of fees incurred solely on the non-fee-bearing unjust-enrichment claim. Because the trial court awarded undifferentiated fees for both claims, the court remanded for segregation of recoverable UDJA-related fees from fees attributable solely to unjust enrichment.

Must attorney’s fees awarded under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act be segregated from fees incurred on non-declaratory claims?

Yes. Although Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 37.009 permits an award of equitable and just attorney’s fees for UDJA litigation, recoverable fees generally must be segregated from fees attributable solely to claims for which fees are unavailable. When a judgment includes both declaratory relief and an unjust-enrichment recovery, the award must be limited to UDJA-related work unless the legal services were so intertwined that segregation was not required.

What is the appellate remedy when a Texas trial court awards unsegregated attorney’s fees for declaratory-judgment and unjust-enrichment claims?

The proper remedy is to remand the attorney’s-fee issue so the trial court can determine the amount attributable to the UDJA-related litigation. The remainder of the judgment may be affirmed when the segregation error affects only the fee award rather than the underlying declaratory relief or damages.

Does a prior royalty deed necessarily burden a mineral interest conveyed later by a separate Texas mineral deed?

No. The instruments must be construed according to their language and as part of the relevant chain of title; a previously reserved royalty does not automatically burden a later-conveyed mineral interest. Here, the 1959 Royalty Deed and 1960 Mineral Deeds were construed as conveying an unburdened one-half mineral interest with a corresponding one-half royalty interest, leaving the original grantors with no remaining royalty interest.

Can a party recover under unjust enrichment when another mineral owner received royalties that belonged to it?

Yes. Unjust enrichment may support restitution when one party wrongfully obtained or retained royalty payments belonging to another. The court affirmed damages for approximately five years of royalties erroneously paid to the Boedeker successors after determining that the Nordan successors owned the disputed royalty interest.

Can the presumed-grant doctrine establish ownership of a disputed Texas royalty interest despite contrary recorded deeds?

Not on the facts presented. The presumed-grant doctrine did not establish that the Boedeker successors retained the disputed royalty interest, and the court affirmed rejection of that affirmative defense. The recorded 1959 and 1960 conveyances controlled the ownership determination.

What happens when a party seeks a Texas declaratory judgment that a recorded royalty deed was forged but fails to prove forgery?

The requested declaration may be denied, leaving the recorded deed effective in the chain of title. The court affirmed denial of the counterclaim seeking to declare the 1959 Royalty Deed forged and therefore construed that deed together with the later 1960 Mineral Deeds.

UDJA Fee Segregation in Texas: Boedeker v. Hudson (2026)

Litigation Takeaway

"A UDJA claim does not make the entire attorney-fee bill recoverable. When family-law or property litigation combines fee-bearing declaratory relief with unjust enrichment or another claim lacking independent fee authority, counsel should plead each available fee basis, organize billing by claim or task, and present evidence segregating work performed solely on nonrecoverable claims. Services that genuinely advance both claims may remain recoverable, but shared facts alone do not excuse segregation."

Boedeker v. Hudson, 08-25-00034-CV, October 30, 2026.

On appeal from 83rd District Court, Pecos County, Texas

Synopsis

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 37.009 does not authorize a court to shift the entire attorney-fee bill merely because a case includes a claim under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. Fees attributable solely to an unjust-enrichment claim must be segregated from UDJA-related fees, and an award that combines recoverable and unrecoverable fees must be remanded for that allocation.

Relevance to Family Law

Texas family-law cases frequently combine claims carrying different fee consequences. A divorce may include declaratory relief concerning title, trusts, marital agreements, business entities, or separate-property ownership alongside reimbursement, fraud, constructive-trust, unjust-enrichment, tort, and contract theories. A SAPCR may similarly combine Family Code claims with collateral civil causes of action. Boedeker reinforces that counsel must identify the statutory or contractual basis for each category of fees and segregate work attributable solely to claims for which fees are unavailable.

The decision is particularly important when a litigant invokes the UDJA in an effort to resolve a property dispute and also seeks monetary relief under a non-fee-shifting theory. Section 37.009 may support fees generated by proper declaratory-judgment litigation, but it does not automatically convert fees incurred on the entire case into recoverable fees. Family-law counsel should also determine whether an independent Family Code provision authorizes the same work; if so, that separate statutory basis should be pleaded, proved, and addressed in the judgment.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The dispute arose from a series of Pecos County mineral conveyances. In 1959, the Boedeker family conveyed an undivided one-half royalty interest to Edward Leede and Victor Zoller. In 1960, the family executed three mineral deeds that collectively conveyed a one-half mineral interest to the same grantees.

The parties disagreed about whether the one-half mineral interest conveyed in 1960 was burdened by the royalty interest addressed in the 1959 royalty deed. The Boedeker Parties contended that the conveyances left their predecessors with a one-fourth royalty interest. The Nordan Parties, successors to part of the interest conveyed through Leede and Zoller, maintained that the 1960 deeds conveyed an unburdened one-half mineral interest with a corresponding one-half royalty interest, leaving the Boedeker side with no remaining royalty interest.

Oil and gas production began under leases executed in 2014. An initial title interpretation treated the 1960 mineral interest as burdened by the royalty interest the Boedekers had retained in the 1959 transaction. Royalty payments were distributed in accordance with that interpretation for several years. A later title opinion reached the opposite conclusion, and the operator eventually suspended payments pending judicial resolution.

The Nordan Parties sued under the UDJA for a construction of the deeds. They also asserted unjust enrichment, seeking recovery of royalties allegedly paid to the Boedeker Parties in error. The Boedeker Parties asserted, among other matters, the presumed-grant doctrine and a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the 1959 royalty deed was forged.

Following a bench trial, the district court construed the deeds in favor of the Nordan Parties, awarded unjust-enrichment damages for the royalties paid to the Boedeker Parties, and awarded attorney’s fees. The court of appeals affirmed the declaratory and monetary relief but concluded that the fee award improperly included fees attributable solely to the unjust-enrichment claim.

Issues Decided

Whether the 1960 mineral deeds conveyed an unburdened one-half mineral interest with a corresponding one-half royalty interest.
Whether the Boedeker Parties retained a royalty interest after the 1959 and 1960 conveyances.
Whether the presumed-grant doctrine established the claimed royalty ownership.
Whether the evidence and applicable equitable principles supported recovery of royalties through unjust enrichment.
Whether the trial court could award attorney’s fees covering both the UDJA litigation and the unjust-enrichment claim without segregating the fees attributable solely to the latter.

Rules Applied

The UDJA permits a person interested under a deed or other written instrument to obtain a declaration concerning the instrument’s construction or validity. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 37.009 further provides that, in a proceeding under the UDJA, a court may award “costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees as are equitable and just.”

Section 37.009 is not an across-the-board fee-shifting provision for every claim litigated in the same lawsuit. Texas follows the general rule that a party seeking attorney’s fees must segregate fees incurred on claims for which fees are recoverable from fees incurred on claims for which they are not. See Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299, 311–14 (Tex. 2006).

Segregation is not excused merely because recoverable and unrecoverable claims arise from the same facts or are litigated together. Fees need not be segregated only to the extent particular legal services advance both a recoverable claim and an unrecoverable claim. Work that would have been required even without the unrecoverable claim may remain recoverable, but work attributable solely to the non-fee-bearing claim must be removed from the award.

Unjust enrichment does not independently provide a general basis for recovery of attorney’s fees. Accordingly, fees generated solely by the effort to obtain monetary recovery under that theory cannot be shifted through § 37.009 merely because the lawsuit also contains a proper UDJA claim.

Application

The Nordan Parties required declaratory relief to resolve the central title question: how the 1959 royalty deed and the 1960 mineral deeds affected the parties’ respective mineral and royalty interests. That work fell within the UDJA and could support an equitable and just fee award under § 37.009.

The suit, however, did more than request a construction of the instruments. The Nordan Parties also sought affirmative monetary recovery of royalties already paid to the Boedeker Parties. The trial court granted that relief under unjust enrichment. Although the ownership declaration and unjust-enrichment claim shared facts, documents, witnesses, and title analysis, the overlap did not make every legal service compensable under the UDJA.

Some services likely advanced both claims. For example, analyzing the deeds, developing the chain of title, examining witnesses concerning the parties’ claimed interests, and obtaining a judicial construction of the instruments could be necessary to both declaratory relief and the related monetary claim. Those services may be recoverable without artificial division if they truly advanced the UDJA claim.

Other work could have related solely to unjust-enrichment damages, including proof concerning particular royalty payments, the amount received, the applicable recovery period, and equitable elements not necessary to construe the deeds. Section 37.009 could not carry those fees. Because the award did not distinguish between UDJA-related services and work attributable solely to unjust enrichment, the appellate court could not affirm the full amount.

The appropriate disposition was not to eliminate the fee award entirely. Instead, the court remanded the fee issue so the district court could limit recovery to fees generated by the UDJA-related litigation, including services that also advanced the declaratory claim, while excluding services attributable solely to unjust enrichment.

Holding

The court affirmed the declaratory judgment construing the mineral deeds as conveying an unburdened one-half mineral interest with a corresponding royalty interest. Under that construction, the Boedeker Parties did not retain the royalty interest they claimed.

The court also affirmed the unjust-enrichment damages awarded for royalties erroneously paid to the Boedeker Parties. The monetary award therefore survived independently of the attorney-fee error.

The attorney-fee award could not stand in its unsegregated form. Fees recoverable under § 37.009 had to be separated from fees incurred solely on the unjust-enrichment claim, for which attorney’s fees were not independently recoverable. The court remanded for determination of the fees generated by the UDJA-related litigation.

Practical Application

In a divorce involving disputed title, counsel should map every cause of action to its fee authority before discovery begins. A request to declare property separate or community, interpret a marital agreement, construe a trust instrument, or determine ownership in an entity may involve declaratory concepts, but counsel should not assume that labeling the request as a UDJA claim makes the entire divorce fee bill recoverable under § 37.009.

The same concern arises when declaratory relief is coupled with reimbursement, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfer, or tort claims. If a theory lacks an independent fee basis, time spent solely proving that claim must be segregated unless another pleaded and applicable statute authorizes the work.

For example, litigation over a spouse’s separate-property claim may require substantial tracing work. If the tracing supports both a proper declaratory claim concerning title and an equitable claim seeking recovery of transferred funds, counsel should identify the common work and explain why it advanced the fee-bearing claim. Time devoted only to the amount of equitable monetary recovery should be separately recorded.

In custody and conservatorship litigation, Chapter 106 of the Family Code may independently authorize reasonable attorney’s fees in a SAPCR. But when the proceeding includes collateral civil claims involving third parties, contracts, trusts, or business entities, counsel should not assume that the SAPCR fee statute reaches every service. Each fee basis should be separately pleaded and the evidence should permit the trial court to allocate the award.

Segregation generally does not require a minute-by-minute reconstruction. A qualified fee witness may offer an informed estimate, stated as a percentage or amount, of the time attributable solely to unrecoverable claims. The opinion should be tied to billing records, litigation phases, claim elements, and the actual services performed.

Checklists

Plead the Correct Fee Authorities

Identify every claim, counterclaim, and request for declaratory relief.
Cite the specific statutory or contractual authority supporting fees for each claim.
Plead applicable Family Code fee provisions independently of the UDJA.
Determine whether the requested declaration resolves a genuine uncertainty concerning legal rights or merely duplicates another substantive claim.
Avoid treating § 37.009 as a substitute for a fee provision that the substantive claim does not contain.
Request conditional appellate fees and identify the legal authority supporting them.

Build Segregation Into Timekeeping

Assign billing codes by claim or category of relief.
Separate title and instrument-construction work from damages-only work.
Identify entries that advance both recoverable and unrecoverable claims.
Record why common discovery, briefing, or trial preparation was necessary to the fee-bearing claim.
Separate work involving third-party civil claims from work performed solely in the divorce or SAPCR.
Review billing entries before trial rather than attempting to reconstruct segregation during fee testimony.

Prepare the Fee Witness

Establish the witness’s qualifications and familiarity with the file.
Prove the reasonable hours worked and reasonable rates charged.
Address the necessity of the services performed.
Identify which claims authorize fee recovery.
Quantify fees attributable solely to claims lacking fee authority.
Explain which services advanced both recoverable and unrecoverable claims.
Provide a reasoned segregation estimate rather than a conclusory assertion that all claims were intertwined.
Segregate trial, post-judgment, and conditional appellate fees when appropriate.

Draft the Judgment

State the statutory or contractual basis for the fee award.
Distinguish fees awarded under the Family Code from fees awarded under § 37.009 or another civil statute.
Avoid a single undifferentiated fee award when multiple legal bases have different scopes.
Ensure the amount excludes fees attributable solely to unrecoverable claims.
Address whether the UDJA award is equitable and just, in addition to reasonable and necessary.
Include conditional appellate-fee amounts for each stage of review.

Preserve Error on an Unsegregated Award

Object when the opposing fee evidence combines recoverable and unrecoverable work.
Identify the claims for which no fee authority exists.
Explain which categories of work appear attributable solely to those claims.
Challenge unsupported assertions that all work was inextricably intertwined.
Request findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the amount and basis of the award after a bench trial.
Raise segregation in post-judgment motions when necessary to preserve the complaint.
Request remand for segregation when the record supports some fee recovery but not the entire award.

Citation

Boedeker v. Hudson, No. 08-25-00034-CV, slip op. (Tex. App.—El Paso Oct. 30, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion.

Family Law Crossover

The crossover rule is claim-specific fee segregation. When a Texas family-law matter combines a claim authorizing attorney’s fees with a claim that does not, the applicant must segregate fees attributable solely to the non-fee-bearing claim. Services that genuinely advance both claims may remain recoverable under the applicable fee authority, but factual overlap alone does not excuse segregation.

Procedurally, the issue should be addressed through pleadings identifying each fee basis, billing records organized by claim or task, and expert testimony allocating the work. The opposing party may preserve a segregation challenge by objecting to an undifferentiated fee request and identifying the claims or services lacking fee authority. If the trial court awards a blended amount containing both recoverable and unrecoverable fees, the appropriate appellate remedy may be remand for segregation rather than rendition of a take-nothing judgment on all fees.

In a divorce, the rule may arise when a spouse requests declarations concerning title or the interpretation of a marital agreement while also pursuing unjust enrichment, constructive trust, fraud, or other monetary relief. In a SAPCR, it may arise when Family Code claims are joined with collateral disputes involving trusts, contracts, real property, or business ownership. The controlling question is not whether the claims share a factual background, but whether the particular legal services advanced a claim for which an applicable statute or contract permits fee recovery.

~~ef498fe7-b5b9-442b-9311-3453b3d48e1e~~

Boedeker v. Hudson