### NUM BER 13-08- 0043 2-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
GA R GIL, L.L .C., A pp ellan t,
v . A RN OLD B ENS ON, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 38t h Dist rict C ou rt o f C amero n Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, G a r

G i l , L

. L

. C

. , fi l e d a n a c t i o n fo r b r e a c h o f a re a l e s t a t e c o n t r a ct, seek ing spec ific per

formance. The cas e w as tr ied to a jur y , and a v erdic t w a s re n d er ed in favor of a ppe ll ee, Arnold Be nson . On app eal, Ga r Gil argues tha t: (1) the trial court
er re d i n det er mini ng thatthe cont ra ct w as am b igu ous as to w hether ti me w as of the
e ss e n ce ; (2 ) th e e vide n ce s u p p o rt in g t h e j u ry’s f in d in g t h a t Ga r Gi l was n o t “re a d y, willin g,O n ap peal , G ar G i l cont ends t hat t he p ur chase oft he 1 20- acr e t r act of l and was condi t i oned on t he 1 subsequ ent sal e of

t he 1 5. 763- acr e t r act

. I n suppor t oft hi s cont ent i on, G ar G i l di r ect s us t o t he t est i m ony of G i l ber t o V. G ar ci a. However , i n hi s t est i m ony , G ar ci a di d no t st at e t hat t he p ur chase oft he 1 20- acr e t r act was c o n d i ti o n e d o n th e s a l e o f th e 1 5 .7 6 3 -a c re tra c t.

I ni t i al l y , Si er r a was a par t y t o t hi s m at t er ; howev er , Si er r a was l at er non - sui t ed. 2 2 and able to perform th e con tract” is fa ctua lly insuf f icient; a nd (3) the trial court e rred in
c o n c l u d i n g t h a tB e n s o n w a s t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a rt y a n d a w a rd i n g B e n s o n a t t o r n e y ’ s fe e s . We aff ir m in par

t and rev erse and render i n par t. I. B A CKGRO UND Gar Gi l is a de v elo pment c ompany thatdev elo ps prope rt ie s to sel l as ind iv idu al
re si denti al lot s. On or about September 30, 2 005, Bens on ent er ed i nto a st andard, w ri tten farm and ra nch cont ra ct to sel l to Gar Gi l a 15.763- acre tract of land loc ated in Cameron Coun ty, T exas. Prior to executin g the contractfor the 1 5.7 63-a cre tract o f land, Gar Gil and Be nson entered int o a separate cont ra ct for th e s ale of approx imat ely 120 acres. O n

1 September

30, 2005, Gar

Gil and Bens on clos ed on the 1 20- acre tractof lan d. G il ber to V

. Garcia, m em ber an d preside nt of G a r Gil, test if ied th at on Sept em ber 30 , 200 5, Ga r Gil had the pu rchase mon ey for both prope rties and thatthe t it le c om pan y , Sierra Title Compan y

( “S ier ra ”) , had the f unds for both trac ts of land. G ar ci a furt her tes ti fied th at at 2 the c los ing for t he 120- acre tract , Be nson re q uest ed th at t he par ti es del ay

the sal e of the 15.763- acre tractfor o ne y ear from Se ptember

30, 2005, so that Bens on coul d recei v e a mo re favo ra b le tax treat me nt on the pro ceed s f rom th e sale. Garcia stated thatGar Gil ag re ed to cl ose on th e 15. 763- acre tracton S eptember 30, 2006. Des pit e the al leg ed ag re ement t o c los e on the 15.763- acre tract on September 30, 2006, the w ri tten cont ra ct cov er ing the lan d i ndi cat ed th at t he c los ing date w oul d be onG ar G i l and Benson i ni t i al ed e ach p age oft he co nt rac t c ove ri ng t he 1 5. 763- acr e t r act of l and, 3 acknowl edgi ng t hat the y u nd ers t oo d t he t er m s of t he co nt r act and t hat t hey agr eed t o be bou nd b y t he c o n tra c t. Par agr aph 6( B) of t he co nt r act pr ov i des t hat i t was Benson’ s obl i gat i on t o pr ov i de G ar G i l wi t h t he 4 ti tl e c o m m i tm e n t.

O n M a rc h 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , th e $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 h e l d i n e s c ro w b y S i e rr a w a s d e p o s i te d i n th e re g i s try o f th e c o u rt. 5 Benson t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat he pai d t axes o n t he p r oper t y t hr ougho ut t he co ur se of t he u nder l y i ng 6 pr oceedi ngs. 3 August 11 , 200 6. The parties did not close on the contracton Au gust 11, 20 06. Gar Gil 3 all eg es that Si er ra w as not ready to cl ose on th at da te, and that Sier ra did not ca ll ei ther p a rt y to a p p ris e t h e m o f t h e s it u a ti o n . Ne it h e r Be n so n n o r Ga r Gi l sh o wed u p fo r clo sin g, a n d G a r G il d id n o td e p o s ita n y m o n e y wi t h S ie rr a a tt h a tt im e . S ie rr a s u b s e qu e n t ly g a ve Gar Gi l the t it le commi tment to t he l and on Aug ust29, 2006. 4 Rea li z ing thatthe Aug ust 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 c los ing date had come a nd g one and that Bens on al leg edl y

had not indi cat ed a desi re to ter minat e the co ntract , G ar Gi l tendered th e full pur chas e pr ic e of $200,0 00 for the l and on September 7 , 200 6, t o be hel d i n es crow by Si er ra . Be nson re fused to per form hi s p art of the cont ra ct after Gar Gi l tendered th e 5 f u ll p u rc h a s e p ri c e fo r t h e l a n d , a n d B e n s o n s o u gh tt o t e rm in a t e t h e co n t ra c t

. Se ve ra l d a ys after tender ing the pur chas e pr ic e for the l and, G a r Gil took pos ses si on of the lan d; howev er, Ben son ref used to convey fee sim ple title to the lan d to G a r G il. Gar Gil 6
cur re ntl y m a intai ns poss ess ion of the l and and has made s ev eral improv ements to the lan d. Gar

Gi l sued Bens on for br each of contractand promis sor y estoppel, seek ing spec ificper

formance. Be nson count er cl aimed, arg u in g thatGar Gi l br eache d the September

30, 2005 c ontractby : (1 ) faili ng to cl ose on th e l and on or before Aug ust11,4

2006; a n d ( 2 ) p r e v e n t i n g B e n s o n fro m r e c e i v i n g $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 i n e a r n e s tm o n e y d e p o s i ted
ear li er as l iq uid ated damag es. Tri a l b e g a n o n J a n u a r

y 2 9 , 2 0 0 8

. P r i o r t o t h e s e c o n d d a y o f t e s t i mo n y , t h e tr ial
cour t made an oral ru li ng thatthe cont ra ct w as ambig uous as to w hether ti me w as of the
ess ence. After

three day s o f testi mony , t he j ur y co ncl uded t hat: ( 1) Gar Gi l and Be nson both faile d to compl y

w it h the contract ; ( 2) Bens on fail ed to co mply w it h the co ntractfirst; (3 ) Gar Gi l w as not “ re ady , w il li ng , and abl e to per form under

the cont ra ct” or

di d not per form under

the contra ct ; ( 4) Bens on w as not e nti tl ed to any damag es; and (5 ) the pr ev ail ing par

ty w as enti tl ed to $33,485 in attor ney ’s f ees for preparati on and tr ial , $8, 000 in attor ney ’s f ees for an appeal to thi s Cour t, and $5,000 i n att or ney ’s fees for an appe al to the T exas Sup reme Court. On Ap ril 11, 200 8, th e trial court con f irmed the jury’ s v erdict and st ate d in its f inal judgme nt tha t Gar Gil w as en titled to recover the $10 ,00 0 in earn est
mo ney it paid to Sierra butt hatB enso n w as the p rev ailing pa rty , thu s entitling him th e jury ’s award of atto rney’s fees. Gar Gi l filed a mot ion for n ew tr ial on A pr il 24, 2008, arg uin g that : (1 ) itco mpli ed
w it h the co ntract ; ( 2) the cont ra ct did not spec ify thatti me w as of the e ss e n ce ; (3) the evidence was fa ctua lly

in suf f icient to esta blish tha t Gar Gil w as no t “ready, w illing , and able to pe rfor m under

the cont ra ct” or

di d notperform under the cont ra ct; and (4 ) Bens on w as n o te n t it le d t o t h e j u ry’ s a wa rd o f a t t o rn e y’s fe e s b e c a u s e h e wa s n o tt h e “p re va il in g p a rt y”
a n d b e c a u s e t h e ju ry er ro n e o u s ly u s e d t h e d o ll a r f ig u re su b m it t e d b y G a r G il ’s a t t o rn e ys rathe r than th e do llar figure subm itted byB enso n’s atto rneys. T he trial co urt did notrule on Ga r Gi l’ s mot ion for n ew tr ial ; t herefore, itw as ov er ru led by operation of law . T EX . R. C IV . P. 3 29b( c)

. This appeal ens ued.T o th e e x te n t t h a t th e j u r y m a y h a v e c o n s id e r e d w h e th e r tim e w a s o fth e e s s e n c e , w e a d d r e s s it in 7 o u r a n a l y s i s o f G a r G i l ’ s s e c o n d i s s u e . See inf r a s ec t i on I I (B ). 5 II. A N AL Y S IS A . Contract A mbiguity In i ts f irst is sue, Gar

Gi l cont ends that the t ri al cour t er re d i n c oncl udi ng thatthe cont ract w as am biguo u s a s t o wh e the r time w as of the esse nce. Specif ically , Gar Gil
arg ues that the c ontractdi d notex pr ess ly state that ti me w as of the es senc e; t herefore, “t he c ontractco nti nued un ti l eit her the sel ler [Bens on] or the buy er [Gar Gi l] per formed and dem and ed p erforma nce o n the othe r side.” The r ecord reflec ts thatthe tr ial court ’s rul ing that the co ntractw as ambig uous as to w het her time was o f

t he essen ce w as ma de o utside the pre sence of the jury. Furthe r, the j ur y ch arg e di d notco ntai n an ex pr ess q uest ion as ki ng w hether ti me w as o f

the
ess ence. See Barran d , I n c . v. W

hatabu rger, Inc. , 2 1 4 S

. W

. 3 d 1 2 2 , 1 2 9 (T e x. 7 App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, pet. deni ed) ( hol din g thatonc e the co urt det erm in e s that the
c o n t ra c tis a m b ig u o u s , t h e in t e rp re t a t io n o f t h e in s t ru m e n t is a qu e s t io n o f fa c tfo r t h e ju ry) (ci ti n g Reilly v. R ang ers Mgm t., In c. , 727 S.W .2d 527, 529 (Tex . 198 7) ). O n appea l, Gar Gi l does not arg ue th at t he j ur y w as improper ly

ch arg ed, n or

does i t ex pla in in it s b ri ef how the c omplai ned- of error , i f any , c aused the re ndi ti on of an i mprop er j udg ment. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1( i) , 44. 1( a) (1 ). Acc ordin g ly , w e find that Gar Gi l has w aiv ed thi s i ss ue. See id. at R. 38.1 ; see als o Boat ri ght v . T ex. Am . T

it le Co. , 790 S.W .2d 722, 727 (Tex . Ap p.–El Paso 1990, w ri t di sm’ d) ( hol din g thatw hen a jur y renders a v erdic t, any is sue w hic h has not b een s ubmit ted t o the j ur y i s w aiv ed)

. W e ov er ru le Gar Gi l’ s first is sue.6

B. Gar Gi l’s Spe cif ic P erfor man ce C laim In i ts sec ond iss ue, Gar Gil asser

ts thatthe ev ide nce suppo rt ing the ju ry ’s findi ng that Gar Gi l w as not “ready , w il li ng , and abl e to per form under

the cont ra ct” or

di d not perform u n d e r th e con tract is factu ally insuf f icient. Gar Gil argues thatthe evidence
conc lu s ive ly p rov ed th at Ga r Gil had the m one y to pay Benso n for the 1 5.7 63-a cre tract of land on Sep tember 30, 2005, and t hat G ar Gi l per formed unde r the c ontractby depos it ing the enti re purchas e pr ic e w it h the ti tl e c ompany and lat er

in the reg is tr

y of the
c o u rt

. Be n s o n co n t e n d s t h a t t h e e vid e n c e d e m o n s t ra t e d t h a tG a r G il wa s n o t“r e a d y,
w il li ng , and abl e to per

form” on th e Aug ust11, 2006 cl osi ng date prov ide d i n the co ntract

. 1. S ta nd ard o f Rev iew In review ing the factu al suf f iciency of the evidence, w e mu st consid er and w eigh all th e e vide n ce , and w e s houl d s et as ide the jud g ment onl y i f it is so co ntrar

y to the
ov er w hel ming w eig ht of t he ev ide nce as to be cl ear ly w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust

. Cain v. Bain , 709 S.W .2d 1 75, 1 76 ( Tex . 198 6) ( per cu ri am). I n doing so, w e must “detai l the evidence relev ant to the issue” and “state in w hat regard the cont rary e vid e n c e gre atly outw eig hs the e v ide nce in suppo rtof the v erdic t.” Dow Ch em . Co. v. Francis , 46 S.W .3d 237, 242 ( Tex . 200 1)

. How ev er , w e may not subs ti tute our

ow n j udg ment for that of the tr ier of fact, e v en i f w e w oul d hav e reache d a d if f e re nt resul t on the e v ide nce. Mar. Oversea s Corp. v. Ellis , 971 S.W .2d 402 , 407 (Tex. 1998 ). 2. A pp licab le L aw The eq uit abl e remedy

of spec ificper

formance may be aw arded upon a s how ing of br each of contract

. St a ff o rd v. S. Vanity Ma gaz

ine , 2 3 1 S

. W

. 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 5 (T e x.7

App .–Dallas 2 007 , pet . den ied). How ever, a party s e e k in g specif ic performa nce m ust plea d an d prove: (1) comp liance wi th th e con tract includ ing tende r of performa nce u nless
ex cus ed by the defendant’ s br each or re pudi ati on; and (2 ) the readi ness , w il li ng ness , and abi li ty to per form at re lev ant t imes

. Di Giusepp e v . Lawler , 269 S.W .3d 5 88, 5 93- 94, 6 01 (Tex . 200 8)

. W hen cont est ed fact is sues must be re sol v ed before a cour t c an det er mine the expedien cy , nece ssity , or propriety of equitable relief , a party is ent itled to have a jury
re sol v e the di sput ed fact is sues . Di Giusepp e , 269 S.W .3d a t 596 ; Sta fford , 231 S.W .3d
a t 5 3 6 (cit in g Burrow

v. Arce , 997 S.W .2d 2 29, 2 45 ( Tex . 199 9) ). In ad dr essin g a pa rty ’s readi ness , w il li ng ness , and abi li ty to per form, i t has been recogniz ed th at “‘[t]he d octrine is f und am ent al tha t a party see king th e reme dy of specif ic per formance

. . . must show hi msel f to hav e been re ady, d e sirous, prompt, and eag er .’ These pr inc ipl es hav e been lon g recog niz ed and re sp ect ed by the Cou rt s o f Texa s.” Di Giusepp e , 2 6 9 S

. W .3 d at59 3 (quo ti n g Ratcl if fe v . M ahr es , 122 S.W .2d 7 18, 7 21- 22 (Tex . C iv . Ap p.–El Pas o 1938, w ri t ref’d) ). “[ T]o be e nti tl ed to sp eci fic p er formance, th e p laint iff must s how thati t has subs tanti all y

per formed i ts par

t of t he cont ra ct, and t hat i t i s a ble to cont inu e per forming i ts par

t of the ag re ement. The pl ain ti ff ’s burde n o f prov ing read iness, wi llingness[,] an d ab ility is a continu ing o n e t h at extend s to all time s relev antto the contractand therea f ter.” Id. ( q uoti ng 25 R I CHA RD A. L ORD , W I L L I S TON O N C ONTRA C T S § 6 7 :1 5 , at236- 37 ( 4th e d. 200 2) (citations om itted )). 3. Disc ussi on On ap peal , Gar Gi l arg ues that, becau se the jur y conc lud ed that Bens on breache d the c o n t r a c t fi rs t a n d b e c a u s e B e n s o n a l l e g e d l y d i d n o t n o t i fy G a r G i l o f h i s int ent t oBot h Benson and Edwi n N. Ful gham I I I , pr esi dent of Si er r a, t est i f i ed t hat Benson not i f i ed G ar G i l of 8 B e n s o n ’ s i n te n t t o te rm i n a te th e c o n tra c t. G a rc i a s ta te d th a t h e n e v e r re c e i v e d n o ti c e o f B e n s o n ’ s i n te n t t o t er m i nat e t he co nt r act and t hat was why G ar G i l t ender ed t he f ul l pur chase pr i ce f or t he p r oper t y aft er t he August 11, 2006 cl osi ng dat e. T he r ecor d cont ai ns a l et t er , dat ed O ct ober 24, 2006, fr om Benson’ s coun sel t o Si er r a i ndi cat i ng Benso n’ s i nt ent t o t er m i nat e t he co nt r act and r equest i ng t hat Si er r a i ssue hi m a check f or t he $ 10, 000 i n ea rne s t m oney pai d by G ar G i l

. At t r i al , bot h Benson and Ful gham wer e som ewhat v ague about when Benson co nv ey ed h i s i nt ent t o t er m i nat e t he co nt r act , st at i ng t hat Benson t er m i nat ed t he co nt r act shor t l y aft er t he Augu st 11, 200 6 cl osi ng d at e. However , t he r econ c i l i ng o f t hi s t est i m ony was wi t hi n t he pr ov i nce o ft he j ur y when i t was de ci di ng whet her G ar G i l w as r eady , w i l l i ng, and abl e t o pe r f or m und er t he c o n tra c t. See R ey na v. F irst N at’ l B an kin E dinb urg , 55 S. W

. 3d 5 8, 73 ( T ex. App. –C or pus C hr i st i 200 1, no pet

. )

. Fur t her , Benson concede d at t r i al t hat G ar G i l shou l d be ent i t l ed t o r ecei v e t he $ 10, 000 i n ea r nest m o n e y. 8 ter minat e the co ntract , G ar Gi l w as enti tl ed to fulfil l it s c ontract ual obl ig ati ons after the specif ied closing date

. Gar Gil specif ically note s thatit fu lly

performe d und er the co ntract 8 by tend er ing the full pur chas e pr ic e on September 7, 2006. In su p p o rt of it s c ontent ion , Gar Gi l direct s u s t o tw o c heck s t endered to Si er ra w hic h, w hen add ed to g ether , amount ed to t he $200 ,000 pur chas e pr ic e. The firs t chec k, dated Ma rc h 8, 2006, w as in the a mount of $10,000 and fulfil led Gar Gi l’ s ea rn e st m oney

obl ig ati ons. The s econd ch eck , dat ed September

7, 2006, w as in the a mount of $190,000 and co nst it uted the remaini ng money o we d fo r t h e p ro p e rt y. How ever, att r i al , Ga r c i a ad mi tt ed t ha t he h ad i ni ti al ed t he p ag e of t he c on tract
w hic h s tated thatthe cl osi ng date w as Aug ust11, 2006, and t hat h e di d nottend er the
rema ining mon ey owed for the p urcha se of the lan d—$1 90, 000 ($200 ,00 0 pu rchase price min us $1 0,0 00 in ea rnest m one y already depo sited)—o n or before August 11, 2 006 . Th is under mines Garci a’s l ater tes ti mony thatGar Gi l w as re ady , w il li ng , and abl e to tender the full pur chas e pr ic e at all ti mes. See Di Giusepp e , 269 S.W .3d a t 593 ; see als o R atcli ffe , 122 S. W .2d a t 721 -2 2. Other than Garci a’s uns ubst anti ated a ss e rt ion thatBens on re q uest ed th at t he par

ti es cl ose on th e proper ty on S eptember

30, 2006, Gar

Gil does not
ex pla in w hy

i t c hose to ig nore the Aug ust 11, 2006 cl osi ng date cont ain ed in the c ontract

.9

Moreover, Edw in N. Fu lgham III, preside nt of Sierra, testif ied th at Ga r Gil did no t cont act Si er ra or att empt t o effect uate cl osi ng on t he proper ty bytenderi ng the pur chas e pr ic e for the l and on or

before Aug ust11, 2006, as re q uired by the cont ra ct. Reg ardle ss , G ar

Gi l’ s a rg uments touc h on the jur y ’s rol e as the fact finder

. It w as the jur y ’s rol e, not ours , to judg e the credi bil ity of the ev ide nce, to ass ig n the w eig ht t o be g iv en to the tes ti mony , and to re so lve inc onsi ste nci es w it hin or co nflic ts among the
w i t n e s s e s’ testi mony . Reyna v. Fir st Nat’ l Bank in Ed

inbu rg , 5 5 S

. W

. 3 d 5 8 , 7 3 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001, no p et.)

. W e find that the j ur y’s verd ict i s n ot ag ain st the
ov er w hel ming w eig ht of the evi dence as to be clea rl y w ro ng or

mani festl y

unj ust ; t hus, the
ev ide nce suppo rt ing the jur y ’s v erdic t i s fact ual ly

su ff ic ien t. See Cain , 709 S.W .2d a t 176

. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Gar Gi l’ s s econd i ss ue. C. Prev aili ng Par

ty an d A tt or ney ’s F ees In i ts thi rd i ss ue on appeal , G ar Gi l arg ues that th e t ria l court er re d i n: (1 ) det ermin ing that Be nson w as the prevaili ng p ar ty ; and (2) aw arding Ben son a ttorn ey’s fees. G a r G il a s s erts tha t beca use th e jury conclud ed th at Be nson had breach ed th e con tract firs t, Gar Gi l had, in fact, p re v ail ed on the mer it s o f the c ase and th a t Be n so n wa s n ot enti tl ed to att or ney ’s fees as the pr ev ail ing par ty

. Gar Gi l als o a rgu e s th a t Bens on w as aw arded t he w ro ng amount of at tor ney ’s fees. Bens on c ontends thathe p re v ail ed on the
me rits becau se the jury conclud ed th at he w as ent itled to keep the 15. 763 -acre tract; th us, he s ucc ess ful ly d e f e n d ed ag ain st Gar Gi l’ s c lai m for s peci fic p er formance under

the cont ra ct. 1 . S t a n d a r d o f

R e v i e w An aw ard of

attor ney ’s f ees is rev iew ed under an abuse of di sc re ti on s tandard. Dail10

v. Couch , 99 S.W .3d 3 90, 3 91 ( Tex

. Ap p .– Co rpus C hr is ti 2003, no p et.)

. The tes t for abuse of dis creti on i s to deter mine w hether the tr ial cour t act ed w it hout re ferenc e to an y guiding r ules or principles, or w het her under the circumsta nces o f the case , the trial court’s act ion s w er e ar bitra ry or unreason abl e. Dow

ner v. Aqu am arine Op erato rs, Inc. , 701 S.W .2d 238 , 241 -42 (Te x . 198 5). 2. Disc ussi on Sect ion 38.0 01( 8) of the c iv il pra ct ic e and re medies co de per mits an a w ard of
a t t o r n e y ’ s fe e s fo r a s u i t b a s e d o n a w r i t t e n c o n t r a ct. See T EX . C IV . P R AC
. & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 38. 001( 8) ( Ver non 200 8)

. How ev er , “ [t] o recov er att or ney ’s fees und er

[s ect ion ] 38. 001 , a party must (1) prevail on a cause of action for w hich at torne y ’s fe es are recoverable, a nd (2) recover dama ges . . . .” Green Int’ l v. Solis , 951 S.W .2d 3 84, 3 90 (Te x . 199 7). Und er Tex as law , a “p re v ail ing par ty ” is a pa rty

w ho su cc e ssfully

prosec utes the act ion or suc ces sfull y defends ag ain st it , pr ev ail ing on the main is sue, ev en if not to the
extent of it s ori g ina l cont enti on. Hoffman v. Deck Masters, Inc. , 6 6 2 S

. W

. 2 d 4 3 8 , 4 4 1 (T e x. App.–C or pus C h ri sti 1983, no w ri t) ; see Fl agshi p Hotel , Ltd. v . Cit y o f G alv

eston , 117 S.W .3d 5 52, 5 64 ( T e x. Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2003, pet. deni ed) ; Dea r v. City of Irv ing , 902 S.W .2d 731 , 739 (Tex. A pp. –Au stin 199 5, w rit de nied ) (“[A] prevailing p arty is one who is
v ind ic ated by

the jud g ments re ndered.” ). Det er mini ng w hether a pa rty i s t he prev ail ing or suc ces sful par

ty mustbe b ased upon the suc ces s on th e mer it s a nd noton w hether or not damag es w er e aw arded. Head v. U.S. Inspe ct DFW

, Inc. , 1 5 9 S

. W

. 3 d 7 3 1 , 7 4 9 (T e x. App.–F ort W orth 20 05, n o pet .) ; Scho ll v. Hom e Owner

s Warr anty C or p. , 810 S.W .2d 4 64, 468 (Tex . App.–San Anton io 1991, no w ri t) ; Perez v. Baker Packe rs , 694 S.W .2d 1 38, 1 4311

(Te x . App .–Hou ston [ 14t h Dist.] 198 5, w rit ref ’d n.r.e. ) ( not ing that lawsuits are not, attheir
core, ab out the rec ov er y of damag es; they

are aboutthe v ind ic ati on of a c iv il cl aim on th e me rits). 3. Disc ussi on Pr ior to submi tti ng the cas e to th e j u ry, couns el for bot h Gar Gi l and Be nson submi tted re q uest s for

attor ney ’s f ees. Bens on’ s couns el r eq uest ed attor ney ’s f ees in the amount o f: ( 1) $39, 530 for preparati on and tr ial ; ( 2) $15, 000 for an appe al to t his C our t; and (3) $10,000 for

an appeal to the Tex as Supreme Cour t. C ounse l for Ga r Gi l re q uest ed
a tt o rn e y’s f e e s in the a mount of: (1 ) $33,485 for p re parati on and tr ial ; ( 2) $8,0 00 for an app eal to this Court; an d (3) $5,0 00 for an ap pea l to the T exas Suprem e Court. Th e jury
conc lud ed th at B enson sh oul d tak e not hin g as to his co untercl aim and aw arded t o the “prevaili ng party” atto rney’s fees which w ere id e n t ic a l t o those requested byGar Gil’s
couns el. The t ri al cour

t then deter mined that Bens on w as the pr ev ail ing par ty and aw arded h im t h e a m o u n to f

a t t o rn e y’s fe e s sp e c if ie d b y t h e ju ry. Ev en th oug h the jur

y did not aw ard Benson any damages on his countercl aim, our anal y si s a s t o w ho w as the pr ev ail ing par ty is cent er ed on w hic h par ty suc ceede d on the meri ts, not on w hic h par ty w as aw arded damag es. See Head , 159 S.W .3d a t 749 ; Scho ll , 810 S. W .2d a t 468 ; Per ez , 694 S.W .2d at 143

. T he co re of Gar Gil’s law suit w as brea ch of contract , s eeki ng sp eci fic p er formance or , i n oth er

w ords, transfer

of ti tl e of the proper

ty from Bens on to Gar

Gil

. The jur

y concl uded that Benson and Gar Gil both breache d the cont ra ct and t hat B enson breache d the co ntractfirst. How ev er , t he j ur y di d notco ncl ude th at Ga r Gi l w as en ti tl ed to s pe c i fi c pe r for ma nc e an d Be ns on w as al l ow ed to keep his proper ty

. W e c oncl ude t hat b ecaus e Bens on s ucc essfull y defended G ar

Gi l’ s c lai m for12

specif ic performa nce a nd was allow ed to keep his p ro p e rt y, t he trial cou rt did noterr i n deter mini ng thatBens on w as the p re v ail ing par ty i n thi s mat ter

. See Head , 159 S.W .3d at 74 9; Scho ll , 810 S.W .2d a t 468 ; Per ez , 694 S.W .2d a t 143

. How ev er , bec ause Bens on
w as no t aw arde d an y dam ages, w e con clu d e t h a t he is not en titled to reason able attor ney ’s fees und er

se cti on 38. 001 of the ci v il pract ic e and re medies co de. See T EX . C IV . P R AC
. & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 38. 001( 8) ; see a lso Solis , 9 5 1 S

. W

. 2 d a t3 9 0

. As a re s u lt , we conc lud e tha t t he tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on i n aw ardin g att or ney’s f e e s to B enson . See Dail , 99 S.W .3d a t 391

. Acc ordin g ly , G ar Gi l’ s t hird i ss ue i s s ust ain ed. III . C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m in par

t and rev erse and render i n par t.

_________

_________

_____ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 25t h day

of June, 2009.