REVERSE and RENDER and Op inion Filed April 20, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00269-CV HAL HAWKINS, Appellant V. MATTHEW T. KNOBBE, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-08280 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Goldstein Hal Hawkins appeals the trial court’s order granting Matth ew T. Knobbe’s application for supplemental attorney’s fees following the trial court’s prior judgment dismissing Hawkins’ underlyi ng lawsuit and this Court’s opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment. In four issues, Hawkins makes the related arguments that the trial court erred in awarding Knobbe additional attorney’s fees because the trial court lacked jurisdictio n over Knobbe’s application for additional fees, an award of “conditiona l” attorney’s fees was im proper because no conditional fees were originally requested or grante d, the requested fees were not actually incurred in defending the suit, and the a dditional fees violate the Texas Citizens–2– Participation Act (TCPA) because they ar e punitive rather than a deterrent. We reverse the trial court’s March 16, 2021 order granting Knobbe’s supplemental application for attorney’s fees, costs, a nd expenses and render judgment that Knobbe take nothing on these claims. In January 2020, the trial court dismissed Hawkins’ claims in the underlying suit pursuant to a motion to dismiss under the TCPA. On January 21, 2020, Knobbe filed an application for “an award of attorn ey’s fees, court costs, other expenses, and sanctions.” Knobbe did not reque st attorney’s fees that might be associated with an appeal from the trial court’s judgment. On February 17, 2020, the trial court signed an order awarding Knobbe co sts and expenses, $18,725 in attorney’s fees, and $1500 as a sanction; the order also did not refe r to appellate attorn ey’s fees. Hawkins appealed. In a December 28, 2020 opinion, a panel of this Court affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing the case. 1 As Knobbe points out, this Court’s judgment “ordered Knobbe to recover his cost s of this appeal from Hawkins.” On January 11, 2021, Knobbe filed in the trial court his supplemental application for fees, costs, and expenses s eeking “his attorney’s fees, court costs, and other expenses incurred in this case” after the trial court’ s February 17, 2020 order. On March 16, 2021, the trial court entered an order awarding Knobbe

1 Hawkins v Knobbe , 05-20-00224-CV 2020 WL 7693111 (Tex. App.—Dallas December 28, 2020, pet. denied).–3– “$10,887 in attorney’s fees, costs and expe nses” and certain additional expenses if Hawkins pursued an appeal. This appeal followed. In his first issue, Hawkin s argues the trial court erred in awarding additional fees because it did not have jurisdiction to make such an awar d. We agree. The trial court signed its fi nal, appealable order in this case on February 17, 2020, and Hawkins filed his notice of appeal the next day. If, as in this case, no motion for new trial is filed, a trial court lo ses jurisdiction to act in a case thirty days after the judgment becomes final. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 329b(d). When a case is appealed and the trial court loses plenary power, the trial court retains continuing jurisdiction only to order or modify the amount or type of security, to suspend execution of the judgment, or to correct clerical mistakes in the judgment. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 24.3; T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 316. Once it lost its plenary power over the issue, the trial court no longer had jurisd iction to award attorney’s fees. See Harris Cty. Children’s Protective Servs. v. Olvera , 971 S.W.2d 172, 175 (Tex. App.—Houston [14 th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). Moreover, this Court’s judgment ordering Knobbe to recover his “costs of this appeal” from Hawkins did not confer upon the trial court the power to award, as costs, appellate attorney’s fees. Id. at 177–78 (attorney’s fees on appeal are not costs on appeal). We c onclude the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award Knobbe appellate attorney’s fees in January 2021, more than a year after its final order in the underlying case. See id. We sustain Hawkins’ first issue.–4– Because of our disposition of Hawkins’ firs t issue, we need not address Hawkins’ remaining issues. We reverse the trial court’s order awar ding Knobbe $10,887 in attorney’s fees, costs and expenses and re nder judgment that Knobbe take nothing on his claim for additional attorney’s fees.

210269F.P05 /Bonnie Lee Goldstein / BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE–5– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT HAL HAWKINS, Appellant

No. 05-21-00269-CV V. MATTHEW T. KNOBBE, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-08280. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s March 16, 2021 order granting Matthew T. K nobbe’s supplemental application for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses is REVERSED and judgment is RENDERED that: Matthew T. Knobbe take nothing on his claims for supplemental attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. It is ORDERED that appellant HAL HAWKINS recover his costs of this appeal from appellee MATTHEW T. KNOBBE.
Judgment entered this 20th day of April 2022.