In re D. Glen Gee--Appeal from 113th District Court of Harris County

Opinion issued September 11, 2006

In The

Court of Appeals

For the

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01 05 00851 CV

____________

IN RE D. GLEN GEE, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINIONRelator D. Glen Gee filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, complaining of Judge Hancock s August 29, 2005 orders (1) disbursing funds deposited into the registry of the trial court and (2) severing Reef Exploration, Inc. s plea in intervention and petition on interpleader into a new case. // On December 12, 2005, the trial court signed a final judgment in favor of Eos Energy, L.L.C., holding that Gee committed common law and statutory fraud and that he breached his fiduciary duty to Eos. Gee filed a notice of appeal, the appeal was assigned to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, and that Court dismissed Gee s appeal for want of prosecution on July 27, 2006. The funds deposited into the registry of the court were maintained in the original case between Eos and Gee, case number 2002 61811, and the last order for disbursement of funds was made on December 12, 2005.

The Clerk of this Court asked Gee to file a response indicating why this mandamus proceeding was not moot in light of the December 12, 2005 final judgment. Gee responded that because there has been no judgment rendered in the severed proceeding in case number 2002 61811A, the mandamus proceeding is not moot because the trial court can continue to allow the clerk to disburse the funds Reef Exploration interpleaded into the registry of the court. Finally, Gee argued that the mandamus proceeding is not moot because there have been no further proceedings in the severed case.

Because the December 12, 2005 judgment determined that Gee has no legal right to the funds interpleaded by Reef Exploration into the registry of the court in case number 2002 61811, we hold that the December 12, 2005 judgment has rendered this proceeding moot. Furthermore, Gee has not demonstrated how the alleged lack of proceedings in the severed case affects his legal interests now that an adverse final judgment has been rendered against him.

We dismiss as moot the petition for a writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Taft and Nuchia.