Opinion issued April 16, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00840-CV

———————————

KERRY ANN WISE, Appellant

V.

CONNIE LOU CONKLIN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2011-32399

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Kerry Ann Wise, challenges the trial court’s judgment, entered 

after a trial to the court, in favor of appellee, Connie Lou Conklin, in Wise’s suit 

seeking to remove an alleged cloud from a title to real estate and to recover 
2

damages for slander of title and tortious interference with a contract. In three 

issues, Wise contends that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to 

support the trial court’s judgment and the trial court erred in denying her request 

for attorney’s fees.

We affirm.

Background

In her third amended petition, Wise alleged that on or about July 6, 2010, 

she purchased from Warren Clay Fry a piece of property located at 20210 

Pittsford, Katy, Harris County, Texas 77450 (the “Pittsford Property”). In 

connection with the transaction, Wise performed a title search, which showed that 

the property was unencumbered. Following her purchase, Wise renovated the 

Pittsford Property and received an offer to buy the property. As Wise and her 

buyers prepared to close the transaction, the title company discovered that Fry’s 

ex-wife, Conklin, had filed an Abstract of Judgment against Fry approximately one 

month after Wise had purchased the Pittsford Property. According to Wise, the 

abstract affected her ability to transfer the property to her buyers because it 

clouded her title. Wise attempted to resolve the title issue with Conklin and her 

attorney, Patrick O’Fiel. However, Conklin refused to “release the property.” 

Because of the “cloud on the title,” Wise suffered damages, including loss of a

sale, lost business opportunities, lost profits, and expenses in maintaining the 
3

property. Wise sought removal of the alleged cloud from the title, damages for 

slander of title and tortious interference with a contract, and attorney’s fees.

At trial, Wise testified that she entered into a contract to purchase the 

Pittsford Property from Fry for $86,000.00. The title company checked the 

property’s title and determined “there were no encumbrances, no liens, and the 

property was free and clear.” Fry executed and recorded the deed, which 

transferred the property to Wise on July 23, 2010. Following her purchase, Wise 

renovated the Pittsford Property with the help of her construction superintendent, 

Michael Dunn. In connection with the renovations, she incurred expenses of 

$62,104.59, plus $20,500.00 for Dunn’s services and expenses. Subsequently, she 

entered into a contract to sell the property to John Lawrence and Aline Morales 

Packard for the purchase price of $206,500.00. She stood to make a profit of 

$37,895.41 on the sale.

Wise, however, could not close the sale with Lawrence and Packard because 

“the title was . . . cloudy” due to the Abstract of Judgment recorded on August 19, 

2010 by Conklin. The abstract stated that Conklin had received a judgment against 

Fry for $375,609.50 on November 12, 2009.1

 1 See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 52.003(a) (Vernon Supp. 2014) (abstract of 

judgment must contain names of plaintiff and defendant; defendant’s birthdate; 

last three numbers of defendant’s driver’s license; last three numbers of 

defendant’s social security number; number of suit in which judgment was 
4

Upon learning of the abstract, Wise and Dunn attempted to contact Conklin 

and O’Fiel to explain their problem with selling the Pittsford Property. Conklin 

told Wise that “she would do nothing to help.” And O’Fiel told Wise that “he 

could do nothing” and “his client [Conklin] refused to release the lien.”

On October 26, 2010, Wise wrote a letter to Conklin and O’Fiel explaining 

that she could not sell the Pittsford Property to Lawrence and Packard because of 

the “clouded title” and requesting that they “please lift th[e] cloud.” She received 

no response. On November 29, 2010, Wise’s attorney sent, by certified mail to 

O’Fiel, a letter in which she explained that the abstract “resulted in 

clouding . . . Wise’s title to th[e] property” and caused Wise to lose her sale of the 

property “because the title company refused to issue title insurance.” Wise’s 

attorney requested that Conklin sign a “Partial Release of Abstract of Judgment 

for . . . Wise’s property.” O’Fiel did not respond. Wise stated that she did not 

know why Conklin would not release the abstract and could not “get into [her] 

mind to know that” but opined that Conklin felt “[r]etaliation against the house” 

and “anger.”

In his deposition, O’Fiel testified that, as a result of divorce proceedings 

between Conklin and Fry, Conklin secured a judgment of approximately 

$375,000.00 against Fry. Six or seven months after the entry of that judgment, 

 

rendered; defendant’s address; date on which judgment was rendered; amount of 

judgment; and rate of interest specified in judgment).
5

O’Fiel filed the Abstract of Judgment. He subsequently received a telephone call 

from “somebody” asking about the abstract and for a release of it. O’Fiel looked 

into the matter, but did not release the abstract. O’Fiel admitted to receiving 

Wise’s personal letter and her attorney’s letter, with a proposed Partial Release of 

the Abstract of Judgment, and stated that he had been notified by 

“[s]omebody . . . claim[ing] that a title company would not issue [a] policy.”

Finally, Lennon Wright, Wise’s trial attorney, testified that his rate is 

$350.00 per hour and Wise had incurred $1,750.00 in reasonable and necessary 

attorney’s fees related to the removal of cloud from title.

The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment against Wise on her claims 

for slander of title and tortious interference with a contract. And it issued findings 

of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court did not award Wise attorney’s fees 

related to her action to remove a cloud from the title, upon which the court had 

previously granted Wise summary judgment.

Sufficiency of Evidence

In her first issue, Wise argues that the evidence is legally and factually 

insufficient to support the trial court’s finding and conclusion of law that Conklin 

did not commit slander of title because “[t]he refusal to release a lien created by an 

abstracted judgment on a homestead which results in a loss of a sale can constitute 

a slander of title.” In her third issue, Wise argues that the evidence is legally and 
6

factually insufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion of law that Conklin did 

not tortiously interfere with her contract to sell the Pittsford Property to Lawrence 

and Packard because she “entered into a valid earnest money contract for the sale 

of the property,” Conklin “had actual knowledge of . . . the contract that 

existed between [Wise] and the purchasers [and] . . . a clear cut indication about 

what would happen if she continued to refuse to release the lien,” Conklin’s 

“refusal to release the Abstract of Judgment was the proximate cause of [Wise’s] 

damages,” and Wise “sustained damage” by losing the sale of the property.

In an appeal from a judgment rendered after a trial to the court, the trial 

court’s findings of fact have the same weight as a jury’s verdict, and we review the 

legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting them, just as we would 

review a jury’s findings. Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex. 1994). 

In conducting a legal-sufficiency review, we consider all of the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the verdict and indulge every reasonable inference that 

would support it. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 822 (Tex. 2005). In 

determining whether legally sufficient evidence supports the finding under review, 

we must consider evidence favorable to the finding if a reasonable fact finder could 

consider it, and disregard evidence contrary to the finding unless a reasonable 

factfinder could not disregard it. Id. at 827; Brown v. Brown, 236 S.W.3d 343, 348 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). In a legal-sufficiency challenge on 
7

an issue on which an appellant bears the burden of proof, she must demonstrate 

that the evidence conclusively established all vital facts to support the issue. Dow 

Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. 2001); Reliant Energy Servs., Inc. 

v. Cotton Valley Compression, L.L.C., 336 S.W.3d 764, 781 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.). In reviewing such a matter-of-law challenge, the court 

employs a two-part test. Reliant Energy, 336 S.W.3d at 781. The court first 

examines the record for evidence that supports the finding, while ignoring all 

evidence to the contrary. Dow Chem., 46 S.W.3d at 241; Reliant Energy, 336 

S.W.3d at 781. If there is no evidence to support the finding, the reviewing court 

examines the entire record to determine if the contrary proposition is established as 

a matter of law. Dow Chem., 46 S.W.3d at 241; Reliant Energy, 336 S.W.3d at 

781. If the contrary proposition is established conclusively, the issue is sustained. 

Dow Chem., 46 S.W.3d at 241; Reliant Energy, 336 S.W.3d at 781.

In conducting a factual-sufficiency review, we review all of the evidence in 

a neutral light and will reverse only if the evidence supporting the finding is so 

weak or the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the 

evidence that it is clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. See Dow Chem., 46 S.W.3d 

at 242; Plas–Tex, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex. 1989). 

When a party is challenging the factual sufficiency of a finding regarding an issue 

upon which she had the burden of proof, she must demonstrate that the adverse 
8

finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Dow Chem. 

Co., 46 S.W.3d at 242; Reliant Energy, 336 S.W.3d at 782.

We review a trial court’s conclusions of law as legal questions, de novo. 

BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002). 

Although a trial court’s conclusions of law may not be challenged for factual 

sufficiency, we may review the legal conclusions drawn from the facts to 

determine whether the conclusions are correct. Id. If we determine that a 

conclusion of law is erroneous, but the trial court nevertheless rendered the proper 

judgment, the error does not require reversal. Id.

Finally, we note that, in a bench trial, the trial court is the sole judge of the 

witnesses’ credibility, and it may choose to believe one witness over another; a 

reviewing court may not impose its own opinion to the contrary. See Golden Eagle 

Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757, 761 (Tex. 2003); Zenner v. Lone Star 

Striping & Paving L.L.C., 371 S.W.3d 311, 314 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2012, pet. denied).

Slander of Title

Wise asserts that “[t]he refusal to release a lien created by an abstracted 

judgment on a homestead which results in a loss of a sale constitutes a slander of 

title” and “[t]here is no question that the abstracted judgment clouded [her] title 

and made it impossible for her to sell” the Pittsford Property.
9

To recover in an action for slander of title, a party must allege and prove: 

(1) uttering and publishing of disparaging words; (2) falsity; (3) malice; (4) special 

damages; (5) possession of an estate or interest in the property disparaged; and (6) 

the loss of a specific sale. See Williams v. Jennings, 755 S.W.2d 874, 879 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, writ denied). In her brief, Wise only addresses 

the last element, loss of a specific sale. Notably absent from her brief is any 

discussion, analysis, argument, or supporting authorities addressing the other 

necessary five elements of her slander of title claim. 

A party that raises a legal-sufficiency challenge to a finding on an issue on 

which she bears the burden proof must demonstrate that the evidence conclusively 

establishes all vital facts to support the issue. See Dow Chem., 46 S.W.3d at 241. 

And a party challenging the factual sufficiency of a finding regarding an issue on 

which she has the burden of proof must demonstrate that the adverse finding is 

against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. See id. By not 

offering any discussion, analysis, argument, or supporting authorities related to all 

of the required elements of her slander of title claim, Wise cannot maintain her 

legal and factual-sufficiency challenges.

Further, an appellant’s brief must contain a clear and concise argument for 

the contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). A failure to provide substantive analysis of an issue or cite 
10

appropriate authority waives the complaint. See Richard v. Cornerstone 

Constructors, Inc., 921 S.W.2d 465, 469 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, 

writ denied). Accordingly, we hold that Wise has waived her challenge to the trial 

court’s finding of fact and conclusion of law that Conklin did not commit slander 

of title. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 

881 S.W.2d 279, 284–85 (Tex. 1994) (appellate court may deem points of error 

waived due to inadequate briefing).

Moreover, we note that the basis for Wise’s slander of title claim is 

fundamentally flawed. Wise asserts that Conklin’s “refusal to release the lien 

created by [the] abstracted judgment . . . which result[ed] in a loss of a sale” of the 

Pittsford Property constitutes slander of title. However, the filing of the Abstract 

of Judgment by Conklin did not place a lien on the Pittsford Property.2

A properly recorded and indexed abstract of judgment creates a lien on a 

judgment debtor’s real property that is located in the county in which the abstract 

is recorded and indexed. TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 52.001 (Vernon Supp. 2014). 

Thus, once a judgment in favor of a judgment creditor has been secured, the 

creditor may wish to record an abstract of judgment in order to create a lien to 

attach to the judgment debtor’s real property and to provide notice to subsequent 

purchasers and encumbrancers of the existence of the judgment against the debtor 

 2 In fact, Wise’s counsel admitted at trial that Conklin “didn’t file a lien on the 

Pittsford Property. . . . She just filed the abstract.”
11

and the lien. See id.; Noble Mortg. & Invs., LLC v. D & M Vision Invs., LLC, 340 

S.W.3d 65, 81 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Olivares v. Birdie 

L. Nix Trust, 126 S.W.3d 242, 247 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, pet. denied). 

Notably, however, the recording and indexing of a judgment creditor’s 

abstract of judgment only impacts real property owned by the judgment debtor. 

See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 52.001 (duly recorded abstract of judgment 

“constitutes a lien on the real property of the defendant located in the county in 

which the abstract is recorded and indexed” (emphasis added)); First State Bank v. 

Jones, 107 Tex. 623, 183 S.W. 874, 876 (1916); Gaona v. Gonzales, 997 S.W.2d 

784, 786 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.); Ferguson v. Kuehn, 246 S.W. 674, 

675–76 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1922, no writ). In other words, the recording and 

indexing of an abstract of judgment will not attach a lien to a property unless it is 

actually owned by the judgment debtor at the time of the abstract’s recording. See 

Smith v. Sumeer Homes, Inc., No. 05-11-01632-CV, 2013 WL 2467252, at *3–5 

(Tex. App.—Dallas June 6, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Gamer v. Love, 41 

S.W.2d 356, 359 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1931, writ dism’d w.o.j.); Marks v. 

Bell, 31 S.W. 699, 702 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1895, writ ref’d); see also 

Westman v. James B. Clow & Sons, Inc., 38 F.2d 124, 125 (W.D. Tex. 1930) 

(recording of abstract of judgment does not, by itself, create lien); Pacific Fin. 

Corp. v. Donald, 286 S.W.2d 260, 263 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1955, no writ) 
12

(when judgment abstracted only after judgment debtor conveyed property to 

another individual, judgment did not create lien on property). Thus, in order to 

determine whether an abstract of judgment creates a lien on a particular piece of 

real property, it is imperative to determine who owned the property at the time the 

abstract was recorded. See Gaona, 997 S.W.2d at 786.

Here, Conklin’s divorce attorney, O’Fiel, testified that as a result of divorce 

proceedings between Conklin and Fry, the previous owner of the Pittsford 

Property, Conklin secured a judgment of approximately $375,000.00 against Fry

on November 12, 2009. Six or seven months after entry of that judgment, O’Fiel 

filed the Abstract of Judgment August 19, 2010. 

There is no evidence, and Wise does not argue, that she was involved in the 

Conklin-Fry divorce proceedings or the judgment obtained by Conklin in those 

proceedings was against anyone other than Fry. Also, it is undisputed that the 

Abstract of Judgment was not recorded until after Fry had sold the Pittsford 

Property and Wise had become its owner. Given these circumstances, the Abstract 

of Judgment could not, as a matter of law, have created a lien on the Pittsford 

Property or affected it in any way. See Smith, 2013 WL 2467252, at *3–5 (abstract 

of judgment cannot create lien on property not actually owned by judgment debtor 

at time of recording); Pacific Fin., 286 S.W.2d at 263 (where judgment abstracted 

after judgment debtor conveyed property to another, judgment did not create lien 
13

on property); Gamer, 41 S.W.2d at 359 (abstract of judgment cannot relate back 

and create lien on property no longer owned by judgment debtor at time of filing); 

First Nat’l Bank of McAllen v. Moore, 7 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tex. Civ. App.—San 

Antonio 1928, writ dism’d w.o.j.) (where judgment obtained in suit in which 

individual not party, recording of abstract of judgment cannot affect individual’s 

title to property); Ferguson, 246 S.W. at 675–76 (abstract of judgment does not 

create lien on property of individual not defendant in suit); Marks, 31 S.W. at 702 

(recording and indexing abstract of judgment does not create lien on property not 

owned by judgment debtor at time of recording); see also Westman, 38 F.2d at 125 

(recording of abstract of judgment does not, by itself, create lien).

Further, because Conklin’s Abstract of Judgment did not create a lien on the 

Pittsford Property, Conklin could not have been required to release a lien that did 

not exist or the Abstract of Judgment, which did not name Wise or pertain to the 

Pittsford Property. See Leslie v. W. Steel Co., 202 F. Supp. 27, 28 (S.D. Tex. 1962) 

(applying Texas law and explaining, “[t]he holder of a judgment has an inherent 

right to have h[er] judgment abstracted and recorded, and there is no duty of the 

holder of such judgment to issue any release to parties owning land who are not 

mentioned in said abstract judgment”). While it is unfortunate that the title 

company, utilized by Wise and her buyers for the attempted sale of the Pittsford 
14

Property, did not understand that the Abstract of Judgment had no effect on the 

Pittsford Property, blame cannot be placed on Conklin for this misunderstanding.

We overrule Wise’s first issue.

Tortious Interference 

Wise next asserts that she “has satisfied each required element” of her claim 

for tortious interference with a contract.

To establish a cause of action for tortious interference, a plaintiff must prove 

that (1) a contract subject to interference exists; (2) the defendant committed a 

willful and intentional act of interference with the contract; (3) the act proximately 

caused injury; and (4) the plaintiff sustained actual damages or loss. ACS Invs., 

Inc. v. McLaughlin, 943 S.W.2d 426, 430 (Tex. 1997). Because it is dispositive, 

we focus on Conklin’s alleged willful and intentional act of interference.

Interference is tortious only if it is intentional. See Southwestern Bell Tel. 

Co. v. John Carlo Tex., Inc., 843 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. 1992). The intent 

required is the intent to interfere, not just intent to do the particular act done. See 

id. To establish a willful and intentional act of interference, there must be 

evidence that a party was more than a willing participant; it must knowingly induce 

one of the contracting parties to breach its obligations. See Browning–Ferris, Inc. 

v. Reyna, 865 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tex. 1993); Funes v. Villatoro, 352 S.W.3d 200, 

213 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied).
15

Here, Wise asserts that “the evidence is convincing that [she] made clear to 

Conklin and her attorney that she was going to lose the sale of the Pittsford 

[Property], which was under contract, if the property was not released from the 

abstract . . . . [and] Conklin acted maliciously towards her by intentionally refusing 

to execute a release of lien on property to which [Conklin] had no right, title or 

interest.”

The evidence presented at trial, however, does not establish that Conklin 

acted with the requisite intent in refusing to release the Abstract of Judgment. 

O’Fiel, Conklin’s divorce attorney, testified that he filed the Abstract of Judgment 

six or seven months after Conklin had obtained a judgment against Fry. He 

subsequently received a call from “somebody” asking about the abstract and 

whether he would release it. O’Fiel ultimately did not “take any actions to release 

the Abstract of Judgment” and did not “intend[] to release [it].” As he explained: 

After I realized that the abstract was filed after [Fry] sold [the 

Pittsford Property], it didn’t really make a whole lot of sense of why 

somebody would need a release of an abstract that doesn’t affect the 

property. It just didn’t make any sense. . . . I didn’t know the details. 

All I know is I get calls from these people that I’ve never met before 

that have never had any involvement with me stating that they want 

something that I couldn’t understand why they needed it, because it 

didn’t affect their property anymore.

Although O’Fiel stated that he had been notified by 

“somebody . . . claim[ing] that a title company would not issue [a] policy,” he 

noted that he thought the title company could make “an exception” and he did not 
16

know “how far they [went] with the policy.” Further, “[a]fter [his] conversation 

with the title company, [he did not] recall any other communications with them,” 

therefore, as far as he knew, “they could have figured out a way” around the 

alleged title problem. We hold that O’Fiel’s testimony does not establish a willful 

and intentional act of interference with a contract by Conklin. 

Further, we note that Wise did not call Conklin as a witness, and Wise, 

herself, testified that she did not know why Conklin did not release the Abstract of 

Judgment and could not “get into [Conklin’s] mind to know that.” This evidence 

does not show a “willful and intentional act of interference.” See ACS Invs., 943 

S.W.2d at 430.

We conclude that the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts of the 

case. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that 

Conklin did not tortiously interfere with Wise’s contract. See BMC Software, 83 

S.W.3d at 794.

We overrule Wise’s third issue.

Attorney’s Fees

In her second issue, Wise argues that the trial court erred in not awarding her 

attorney’s fees because she “filed this suit as a Declaratory Judgment action in 

order to remove the cloud on the title” and “is only asking for attorney’s fees for 

the removal of the cloud, not for the action for damages.” Wise asserts that her 
17

attorney “testified during the trial of this case that the sum of $1,750 was a 

reasonable and necessary fee for removal of the cloud” and “[t]his testimony was 

not refuted or questioned in any manner.”

The Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (“UDJA”) “entrusts attorney fee 

awards to the trial court’s sound discretion, subject to the requirements that any 

fees awarded be reasonable and necessary, which are matters of fact, and to the 

additional requirements that fees be equitable and just, which are matters of law.” 

Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex. 1998); Indian Beach Prop. Owners’ 

Ass’n v. Linden, 222 S.W.3d 682, 706 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no 

pet.); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 37.009 (Vernon 2008) (“In 

any proceeding under this chapter, the court may award costs and reasonable and 

necessary attorney’s fees as are equitable and just.”). Because the grant or denial 

of attorney’s fees is within the sound discretion of the trial court, its judgment will 

not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing that it abused its 

discretion. Oake v. Collin Cnty., 692 S.W.2d 454, 455 (Tex. 1985); Indian Beach 

Prop., 222 S.W.3d at 706.

A trial court does not abuse its discretion if some evidence reasonably 

supports its decision. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 211 (Tex. 

2002); Indian Beach Prop., 222 S.W.3d at 706. A trial court abuses its discretion 

when it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably and without reference to any guiding rules 
18

or principles. Bocquet, 972 S.W.2d at 21; Indian Beach, 222 S.W.3d at 706. We 

presume that the trial court acted within the bounds of discretion unless the record 

shows the contrary. Sanchez v. AmeriCredit Fin. Servs., Inc., 308 S.W.3d 521, 526 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.); Beard v. Endeavor Natural Gas, L.P., No. 01-

08-00180-CV, 2008 WL 5392026, at *8 (Tex. App. —Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 19, 

2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Here, the trial court did not reveal the basis for its 

denial of attorney’s fees; therefore, we may uphold its ruling on any basis 

supported by the evidence. Beard, 2008 WL 5392026, at *8. It is Wise’s burden 

to bring a record showing that the trial court abused its discretion. See Simon v. 

York Crane & Rigging Co., 739 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex. 1987).

In her petition, Wise labeled her suit to remove “cloud” from the Pittsford 

Property’s title as a declaratory judgment action, and she sought a declaration that 

“the abstract of [judgment had] no force and effect against” the property. Wise 

moved for partial summary judgment on this claim, which the trial court granted. 

She did not move for summary judgment on her attorney’s fees claim. At trial, 

Wright, Wise’s attorney, testified that his rate is $350.00 per hour and he incurred 

a total of $1,750.00 in reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees related to the 

removal of cloud from title.

Although Wise asserts that she is entitled to attorney’s fees under the UDJA, 

“[a] declaratory judgment action may not be used solely to obtain attorney’s fees 
19

that are not otherwise authorized by statute or to settle disputes already pending 

before a court.” Southwestern Guar. Trust Co. v. Hardy Road 13.4 Joint Venture, 

981 S.W.2d 951, 956 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). Here, an 

examination of the pleadings reveals that Wise’s declaratory-judgment action is, in 

reality, a suit to remove a cloud from a title. 

A suit to clear title or quiet title—also known as a suit to remove 

cloud from title . . . exists “to enable the holder of the feeblest equity 

to remove from his way to legal title any unlawful hindrance having 

the appearance of better right.” . . . The effect of a suit to quiet title is 

to declare invalid or ineffective the defendant’s claim to title.

Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter, 371 S.W.3d 366, 388 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (internal citations omitted); see also Vernon v. 

Perrien, 390 S.W.3d 47, 61–62 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, pet. denied) 

(explaining suit to remove cloud from title). Wise states in her petition that she 

“brings this action against the [d]efendant to remove the cloud, so that she may sell 

it in the future.” And the trial court in its judgment determined “that the Abstract 

of Judgment . . . has no force and effect as to” the Pittsford Property. We conclude 

that Wise’s suit is one to remove a cloud from a title.

“Attorney’s fees are not available in a suit to quiet title or to remove cloud 

on title.” Southwestern Guar. Trust, 981 S.W.2d at 956. And the UDJA cannot be 

used to “supplant [such a suit] by allowing attorney’s fees under these 

circumstances.” Id.; see also Sani v. Powell, 153 S.W.3d 736, 746 (Tex. App.—
20

Dallas 2005, pet. denied) (“In substance Powell’s claim for declaratory relief is a 

claim to quiet title. . . . We conclude . . . that Powell was not entitled to an award of 

attorney’s fees under the [UDJA].”); DAS Inv. Corp. v. Nowak, No. 01-02-00140-

CV, 2004 WL 396983, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 4, 2004, no 

pet.) (mem. op.) (where counterclaim alleged liens were clouds on title and were 

unenforceable and prevented defendants from having good and marketable title to 

property, defendants could not recover attorney’s fees under UDJA because claim 

was one to quiet title); Kennesaw Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Goss, 694 S.W.2d 115, 

117–18 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (UDJA could not 

be used to recover attorney’s fees for a suit brought to remove cloud from title). 

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to 

award Wise her attorney’s fees.

We overrule Wise’s second issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Terry Jennings

Justice 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.