law-common-fund-doctrine
In their first and second issues, appellants contend the trial court abused its discretion by denying their
request for expenses and attorney's fees pursuant to the “common fund doctrine.” That doctrine is an
equitable doctrine designed to prevent unjust enrichment. See Knebel v. Capital Nat'l Bank in Austin, 518
S.W.2d 795, 799 (Tex. 1974). It is founded on the principle that “one who preserves or protects a common
fund works for others as well as for himself, and the others so benefitted should bear their just share of the
expenses, including a reasonable attorney's fee; and that the most equitable way of securing such
contribution is to make such expenses a charge on the fund so protected or recovered.” Id. We review the
trial court's decision regarding an award of attorney's fees under the common fund doctrine for an abuse
of discretion. Crouch v. Tenneco, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 643, 646 (Tex. App.-Waco 1993, writ denied).
08‑0722
GRAYSON DOUGLAS GILL, ELLEN EVES DENNIS, EMILY SCANLON CRUMP, ROBERT BLAIR SCANLON
AND CALLOWAY, NORRIS & BURDETTE v. JANICE L. MATTOX, ATTORNEY AD LITEM FOR THE
UNKNOWN HEIRS OF HARRISON DOUGLAS FENDLEY, DECEASED; from Dallas County; 5th district
(05‑07‑00429‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06‑23‑08, pet. denied Oct 2008)(request for expenses and attorney's
fees pursuant to the “common fund doctrine.” That doctrine is an equitable doctrine designed to prevent
unjust enrichment).
The record reflects that the efforts of both CNB and Mattox were necessary for the successful completion
of this case. CNB received one-third of the maternal heirs $375,000 recovery for representation of the
maternal heirs in this case. Mattox was awarded $115,306 in attorney's fees and costs for her
representation of the 1006 paternal heirs. Although Mattox's fees and costs were to be paid by Mackey
rather than from the fund, that condition was set forth in the settlement agreement negotiated by
appellants, Mackey, and Mattox. The trial court was familiar with the facts of the case, the efforts made by
the attorneys, the source of the funds, the extent of the estate, and the results achieved on behalf of
everyone involved. Examining the record as a whole, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its
discretion by denying appellants' request for one-third of the paternal heirs' portion of the fund in addition
to the amount it received from the maternal heirs' portion of the fund. We overrule appellants' first and
second issues. Having done so, we need not address appellants' third issue.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order denying appellants' request for expenses and attorney's fees
under the common fund doctrine.