FILE COPY

THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Post Office Box 12248 Austin, Texas 78711 (512)463-1312

March 29, 2013

Mr. Gregory D. Smith Mr. Charles R. 'Skip' Watson Jr. Ramey & Flock, P.C. Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, L.L.P E. Ferguson, Suite 500 100 Congress Av^^^pCOURT 0FAPPEALS Tyler, TX 75702 Austin, TX 78701 ' 40fith Court of Appeais District RE: Case Number: 10-0887 Court of Appeals Number: 12-08-00175-CV Trial Court Number: 2004-299 TYLER TE) Style: WENDELL REEDER CATHY S. LUSK, v. WOOD COUNTY ENERGY, LLC; WOOD COUNTY OIL & GAS, LTD.; NELSON OPERATING, INC.; DEKRFOUR, INC.; BOBBY NOBLE; EXZENA OIL CORPORATION; DAVID FRY AND PATRICIA FRY Dear Counsel:

Today, the Supreme Court of Texas granted the Motion for Rehearing and issued a Supplemental Per Curiam Opinion in the above-referenced cause. The judgment issued August 31, 2012 is withdrawn and substitutes the judgment of this date.

Sincerely, g>c^*<^ a. Hcmo*&*>v^ Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk cc: Ms. Jenica Turner Ms. Cathy S. Lusk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

No. 10-0887

Wendell Reeder, Petitioner,

Wood County Energy, LLC, Wood County Oil & Gas, Ltd., Nelson Operating, Inc., Dekrfour, Inc., Bobby Noble, Exzena Oil Corporation, David Fry, and Patricia Fry, Respondents

On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Twelfth District of Texas

supplemental per curiam on motion f o r rehearing o f cause

In their motion for rehearing, respondents contend that this Court's judgment improperly reversed portions of the trial court's judgment that petitioner did not challenge and we did not address. We agree. For the reasons explained in our opinion issued August 31, 2012, the trial court erred in entering judgment for respondents on their claims governed by the joint operating agreement. But petitioner did not challenge the portion ofthe judgment awarding $7,500 plus $7,500 in associated attorney's fees to Patricia Fry or the portion granting declaratory relief and awarding $55,000 in associated attorney's fees to respondents. We therefore grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw ourjudgment dated August 31,2012, and issue a new judgment that affirms those portions of the trial court's judgment and reverses and renders a take-nothing judgment on the remaining claims.

OPINION DELIVERED: March 29, 2013