### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10 - 15 - 00361 - CV
CRAIG CHAMPION , Appellant v. FRANK RAMSEY, RAMSAY RAMSEY, RANDAL RAMSEY, AND D BA SUMMIT PROPERTIES AND MANAG EMENT COMPANY , Appellee s

From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11
- 000044 - CV
- 85

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Craig Champion appeals from a judgment that awarded attorney's fees to Frank Ramsey, Ramsay Ramsey, Randal Ramsey, and d/b/a Summit Properties and Management Company after this case was remanded to the trial court for that purpose in an earlier appeal. Se e Ramsey v. Champion , No. 10

- 12

- 00394

- CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXISChampion v. Ramsey Page 2

5008 (Tex. App.

— Waco May 8, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Champion argues that the trial court did not have authority to award attorney's fees. Because we find no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
A TTORNEY ' S F EES The factual background of the case is not at issue in this appeal of attorney's fees and is set forth in our prior opinion. See Ramsey v. Champion , 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 5008.
The third issue in the earl ier appeal was whether the trial court had erred in refusing to award attorney fees to the Ramseys. In their initial briefs to this Court, both parties referred to the Declaratory Judgment Act in their discussion regarding attorney's fees.
The Court addr essed the issue as follows: Attorney's Fees In their third issue, the Ramseys argue that the trial court erred by refusing to award attorney's fees to them in this matter. This claim is in the nature of a declaratory judgment action, for which attorney' s fees may be recoverable. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 37.009 (West 2008). Certainly, in the exercise of its discretion in a declaratory judgment action, the trial court may award attorney's fees to the prevailing party, may decline to award attorney's fees to either party, or may award attorney's fees to t he nonprevailing party, regardless of which party sought declaratory relief. Brookshire Katy Drainage Dist. v. Lily Gardens, LLC , 333 S.W.3d 301, 313 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). However, because we have found that the trial court e rred by its declaratory judgment creating an easement by estoppel, we reverse the judgment regarding attorney's fees and remand this proceeding to the trial court for the trial court to reconsider in light of our decision. We sustain issue three.Champion v. Ramsey Page 3

After r eversing the trial court and rendering judgment in favor of the Ramseys, this Court's judgment was to “remand to the trial court the issue of attorney’s fees and court costs for further proceedings.” As we stated in the earlier opinion, the trial court was not required to award attorney's fees, but having reversed the declaratory judgment that the trial court had rendered, we were obligated to remand the proceeding to the trial court, so that the trial court could, in light of our decision, decide whether i t would award attorney's fees under
the statute. Champion filed a motion for rehearing in the prior appeal, but did not complain about the Court’s holding on the issue of attorney's fees or to the Court’s judgment on this issue. Further, Champion did not raise the issue in his petition for discretionary review which was denied, thus finalizing this court’s opinion and judgment. In this current appeal, Champion does not complain regarding the amount of attorney's fees awarded. Champion's argument is limit ed to the propriety of the award of any attorney's fees because there is no legal basis upon which to award attorney's fees. That issue was previously decided and this Court's determination was not challenged in that appeal and we will not address it in t his appeal. See Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp. , 102 S.W.3d 714, 716 (Tex. 2003) ("Application of the [law of the case] doctrine lies within the discretion of the court, depending on the particular circumstances surrounding that case."). We overrule Champion’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.Champion v. Ramsey Page 4 M OTION FOR S ANCTIONS In their brief, the Ramseys move for sanctions against Champion for filing a frivolous appeal. That motion remains pending. If Champion chooses to file a motion for rehearing, Champi on is hereby notified that since the motion is still pending, a response to the Ramseys' motion may be filed and any response is due on or before the deadline for filing the motion for rehearing and may be incorporated into the same
document.
C ONCLUSION Having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. The motion for sanctions remains pending.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and fi led April 14, 2016 [CV06]