## Facts

- Jo Ann Small and Aldean Harper lived together in a long-term same-sex relationship (about 12–15 years) and acquired various assets during that time.
- Small sued Harper seeking her claimed share of property allegedly acquired through a shared economic arrangement.
- Small alleged an oral agreement to commingle resources, invest in real estate and other property, and share profits, asserting an oral partnership as her primary theory.
- Alternatively, Small alleged the parties engaged in joint ventures entitling her to an accounting and partition.
- In a further alternative, Small sought imposition of a resulting trust or constructive trust to protect her asserted interests.
- Small alleged that, as to at least one transaction, the parties orally agreed to purchase a single-family residence for $17,360 and to share all costs.
- After pleadings and depositions, Harper moved for summary judgment; Small filed an opposition with an affidavit shortly before the trial court granted summary judgment for Harper.

## Issues

1. Whether Harper, as the summary-judgment movant, conclusively established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a by negating Small’s partnership, joint venture, and trust theories.
2. Whether the summary-judgment record (including Harper’s own evidence plus Small’s pleadings and affidavit) raised genuine issues of material fact requiring trial.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and remanded.
- Harper did not conclusively prove all essential elements of her defense as a matter of law.
- The summary-judgment record, including Small’s specific allegations and evidence of shared property acquisitions and cost-sharing, raised fact questions that precluded summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas Rule 166a, the movant bears the burden to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
- A summary-judgment movant must conclusively negate at least one essential element of the nonmovant’s claims or conclusively establish all elements of an affirmative defense.
- Courts reviewing summary judgment examine the movant’s proof for legal sufficiency and will not resolve disputed fact questions at the summary-judgment stage.
- Claims framed as partnership, joint venture, or equitable trust theories turn on proof of the alleged economic arrangement; they are not defeated at summary judgment where the record reflects specific, contested facts.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that summary judgment was improper because the record contained genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the parties formed an enforceable economic arrangement (partnership or joint venture) and whether equitable trust relief might apply, requiring remand for further proceedings.


Small v. Harper, 638 S.W.2d 24 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982)