| Close=20
This Window | |
|
PER=20 CURIAM
We=20 recently held in Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa that a=20 prevailing party must segregate recoverable from unrecoverable = attorney=92s=20 fees in all cases. ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. 2006). The court of = appeals=20 here correctly reversed and remanded for segregation; but as it = defined=20 recoverable fees too narrowly, we modify its judgment. The=20 Varners sold a ranch to the Cardenases in December 1997 in return = for cash=20 and a promissory note. The note provided for ten annual = installments due=20 each December. The Cardenases paid the first installment in = December 1998,=20 but no others. In response to the Varners=92 suit on the note, = they alleged=20 the ranch was 180 acres less than represented. Both parties added = claims=20 against the title insurer and its agents, which the trial court = severed=20 out. After a=20 bench trial, the trial court granted judgment for the Varners, but = reduced=20 the balance on the note to reflect a shortfall in acreage. The = court of=20 appeals reversed, granting the Varners the full balance because = the=20 Cardenases never pleaded mistake or requested reformation of the = deed.=20 See 182 S.W.3d 380, 382-83. Neither party appeals that = ruling. The=20 trial court also awarded the Varners $40,500 in attorney=92s fees = for trial.=20 The court of appeals reversed because the Varners had failed to = segregate=20 fees incurred in their suit on the note from fees incurred (1) = pursuing=20 claims against the title insurer, or (2) defending against the = Cardenases=92=20 counterclaim. Id. at 383-84. In=20 Chapa, we reestablished the rule that attorney=92s fees are = recoverable only if necessary to recover on a contract or = statutory claim=20 allowing them, and eliminated the exception for fees incurred = solely on=20 separate but arguably intertwined claims. ___ S.W.3d at ___. In = this case,=20 we agree with the court of appeals that fees incurred pursuing the = title=20 insurer cannot be collected from the Cardenases =97 suing third = parties was=20 not necessary for the Varners to collect on their note. But we=20 disagree that fees defending against the Cardenases=92 = counterclaim must be=20 segregated too. By asserting a shortfall in acreage as a defense = and=20 counterclaim, the Cardenases sought to reduce the amount collected = on the=20 note; to collect the full amount, the Varners had to overcome this = defense. As their attorney=92s efforts to that effect were = necessary to=20 recover on their contract, they are recoverable. See id. at = ___;=20 Tex. Civ. Prac. & = Rem. Code=20 =A7 38.001(8). The=20 Varners raise two additional issues. First, the trial court denied = any=20 attorney=92s fees for post-judgment foreclosure or appeal, and the = court of=20 appeals affirmed because no evidence was offered regarding a = reasonable=20 fee for those services. See 182 S.W.3d at 383. The Varners = cite no=20 such evidence, but ask us to change Texas procedure to allow = post-judgment=20 fees to be determined after appeal by remand to the trial court. = We=20 decline the invitation to allow two trials on attorney=92s fees = when one=20 will do. See Int=92l Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Spray, 468 = S.W.2d 347, 349=20 (Tex. 1971) (requiring proof of appellate fees in initial = trial). Second,=20 the court of appeals reversed the trial court=92s assessment of = prejudgment=20 interest on the entire note balance beginning December 15, 1998. = See=20 182 S.W.3d at 384-85. As the note did not waive notices = regarding=20 acceleration, interest ran on unpaid installments only until = acceleration=20 occurred. See Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. = Wolf, 44=20 S.W.3d 562, 566 (Tex. 2001). The Varners concede the judgment was=20 erroneous because the Cardenases did not default in 1998, but = argue we=20 should change =931998=94 to =931999=94 as a clerical error. While = they make a=20 persuasive case that acceleration itself was uncontested, they = point to no=20 pleading, evidence, or stipulation as to when acceleration = occurred. Thus,=20 we cannot determine as a matter of law when interest began to run = on the=20 entire note rather than just unpaid installments. Accordingly,=20 without hearing oral argument, we modify the court of appeals=92 = judgment to=20 the extent it required segregation of fees the Varners incurred = defending=20 against the Cardenases=92 counterclaim, and as modified affirm. = See=20 Tex. R. App. = P.=20 59.1.
OPINION = DELIVERED:=20 March 2, 2007
|