### NUM BER 13-09- 0015 3-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
FOR D M OTO R COMPA NY, A pp ellan t,
v. RIC HA RD H . GA RC IA , A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 93 rd D is tr ic t C o u rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s T his is an app eal f rom a n orde r requiring app ellant , Ford Motor Com pan y ("Ford"), to pay the g uardia n ad li tem fees o f appell ee, R ic hard H . G ar ci a, i n the amount of $28,260. In t his ca se, Garci a w as appoi nted g uard ian ad l it em, w it hout obj ect ion , for the inc apaci tated pl ain ti ff

Je sus Gonz ale zi n the under ly ing p e rso n a l injur y ac ti on. Al l the cl aims i n thi s c ase were s e tt le d b y the par ti es and ac cept ed i n the final j udg ment of the court be low , leaving only the issue of comp ensa tion for the guardia n ad litem on app eal.2

At a hear ing before the t ri al jud g e, F ord c ontende d t h a t t he req uest ed fees w er e not
re asona ble under

the Tex as Rul es of C iv il Procedu re , w hic h prov ide that"[i ]f a g uardia n ad l it em r eq uest s c ompensat ion , he or s h e
. . . may

be p aid a reaso nab le hour ly fee for
nece ssary

se rv ic es per

formed." See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 173.6( a) ( emphasi s a dded)

. Ov er i ts obje ction, Ford w as orde red to p ay the f ull amo unt of Garcia's fees. Ford now

arg ues on appe al that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on by order ing pay me n t of Garci a's fees bec ause: ( 1) Garci a fail ed to sh ow ev ide nce that the t ask s h e per formed w er e re lev ant to the pur pose for w hic h he w as appoi nted; (2 ) a s u b st a n ti al por ti on of the bil led tas ks w er e per formed by

uni denti fied i ndi v idu als on Gar ci a's st aff , for
w hom i t i s i mposs ibl e to deter mine a reas onabl e hour ly rate; and ( 3) Garci a di d notpresent any ev ide nce to s how

the act ual number

of hours h e or

hi s s taff spentto per

form any of th e ta s k s c ha rg ed o n hi s i nv oi c e. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND Jes us Gonz ale zsu ff er ed a br ain i njury whe n h is son's F ord Tru ck roll ed ov er

on Intersta te H ig hw ay

45. H is wif e , Ramona, broug ht t he unde rl y ing personal i nju ry ac ti on ag ain st Ford as hi s g uardia n, al ong w it h c lai ms on her ow n behal f. The par

ti es re ached
a c onfidenti al set tl ement ag re ement on the under ly ing cl aims , but i n order to final iz e the set tl ement, couns el for th e pl ain ti ffs fil ed an unoppos ed motion req uest ing that a g uardia n a d li t e m b e a p p o in t e d t o p ro t e c tJe s u s ' s in t e re s t s
. G a rc ia wa s a p p o in t e d i n t h is ca p a c it y. Fol low ing thi s a ppoi ntment, the tr ial co urt hel d a hear ing to deter mine if the set tl ement w as in Jes us' s b esti nterest

. The cour t found t hat i t w as in hi s b e st int er est , butdeferred
s i g ni ng t he j ud g me ntu nt i l G ar c i a' s fee s c ou l d be de te r mi ne d. The e nt i r e am ou nto f t i me that ela psed from Garci a's appointmentto the cour t' s f ina l deter minat ion on t he s ettl ement
w as 10 days.3

In a hear ing on F ebr uar y 1 8 , 200 9, t he tr ial co urt hea rd ev ide nce and c onsi der ed Garcia's com pen sation

. At this hea ring, Garcia prov ided the trial court wi th an inv oice in
w hic h he li ste d ac ti v it ies thathe h ad per formed i n hi s role as g uardia n ad li tem. Base d on tha t inv oice an d Garcia's test imo ny, th e trial co urt orde red the f ull a mo unt o f G arcia's fees, $28,260 , t o be inc lud ed i n the co urt c ost s c harg ed to F ord. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 173 .6(c) ("The Cour

t may tax a g uardia n ad li tem's co mpensat ion as co sts of cour t.") . F ord now appeal s t o thi s C our

t. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 173.7( a) ( "Any party a n d a guardi an ad li tem
ma y app eal an order awarding the g uard ian ad litem com pen sation ."). II. D I S CUS S I ON A . St and ard o f Rev iew W e r ev iew

an a w ar d of compensat ion to a g uardia n ad li tem for an abus e of dis creti on. See, e.g. , Lan d Rover U.K., L td. v. Hinojo sa , 210 S.W .3d 604, 608 (Tex . 200 6) (per curia m ). An aw ard of comp ensa tion " is in the trial court's soun d discretion , and w ill not b e s et as ide abs ent e v ide nce that the t ri al cour t c lea rl y abus ed it s dis creti on." Garcia
v. Ma rt ine z , 988 S.W .2d 2 19, 2 22 ( Tex . 199 9)

. The tes t for abuse of dis creti on does not
conc er n w hether

thi s C our

t w oul d hav e found differ entl y if pla ced in the p osi ti on of the tr ial
cour t, but rather , w hether

the tr ial co urt' s d eci si on w as "arb it ra ry , unreason abl e, an d
w it h o ut referenc e to g uid ing pr inc ipl es. " Mecede s- Benz C re dit C or p. v . R hyne , 925 S.W .2d 6 6 4 , 6 6 6 ( Te x . 1996) ; s e e also W . W endel l Hal l, Standa rd s o f R evi ew in T exas , 38 S T
. M A RY ' S L.J. 47, 60-63 (2006 ) ( citing doz ens o f cases using an ide ntical sta nda rd of rev iew ). In mak ing a f a ct u a l deter minat ion , t he tr ial co urt may bas e i ts deci si on on confli cti ng or other w is e q uest ion abl e ev ide nce w it hout abusi ng i ts dis creti on and onl y abus es it s dis creti on if there is no ev ide nce w hats oev er to suppo rti ts deci si on. W CM Gr oup , Inc. v. Br own , 305 S.W .3d 2 22, 2 29 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2009, pet. di sm' d by ag r. ). If the4

tr ial co urt made it s d eter minat ion bas ed on some reason abl e basis and used some g uid ing pr inc ipl es, i t nec ess ar il y ac ted w it hin i ts per mis si ble di sc re ti on, a nd w e must aff ir m. See id. B. A pp licab le L aw In de term ining a reason able fee for a guardian a d litem 's serv ices, a trial court shoul d empl oy

the factors used to deter mine the reason abl eness of attor ney 's fees. Land Rov er , 210 S.W .3d a t 607 ; Garcia , 988 S.W .2d at 222. If thes e factors for m the basi s o f the trial court's decision, then it clearly w as em ploying a set of stan dard g uiding principles. These fact ors i ncl ude: (1 ) the ti me and lab or re q uired, the nov elt y and difficul ty of the q uest ion s in vo lve d , a n d t h e sk il l r e qu ir e d t o p e rf o rm t h e le ga l s e rvi c e p ro p e rl y; (2) the likelihood . . . that th e acce pta nce o f the particular em ploymen t w ill preclud e oth er em ploymen t by the lawy er; (3) the fee cu stom arily charged in the localityfor similar legal serv ices; (4 ) the a mount i nv olv ed and the resul ts obtai ned; (5) the time limita tions im pose d by the client or by the circumsta nces; (6 ) the n ature and len g th of the professi onal rel ati onshi p w it h the cl ien t; ( 7) the e x pe r i en c e, r ep ut at i on , an d ab i l i ty of the lawy er or law y ers per forming the ser

v ic es; and ( 8 ) w hether

the fee is f ix ed or conti ng ent o n r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d or uncer tai nty of col lec ti on befor e the l eg al ser v ic es hav e been re nder ed. Id. at 60 7. Mo re ov er , i n c alc ula ti ng the g uardia n ad li tem fee, a si mple formula ca n be employ ed: "A

r eason abl e hour ly

rate multi pli ed bythe number of hours spent pe rfor ming
neces sar

y se rv ic es w it hin the g uardia n ad li tem's role y iel ds a r eason abl e fee." Id . at608. C. Fo rd 's I ssue s o n A pp eal Ford argues three distinct ev iden tiary insuf f iciencies that i t claims require this Court5

to f ind an abu se of

discretion. In dete rmining w het her an abu se of discretion o ccurred in
ea c h of t he s e i s s ue s , i t i s i mp erat i v e to n ot e th att hi s C ou rt i s i ns tr uc te d by th e Su prem e Court of T exas to " draw upo n the co mm on kn owl edge of the justice s and [our] experience as lawy e rs a n d judges to view the m atte r in l ight of

the evidence and the am oun t in cont ro v ersy ." Id . at607. By its f irst issue, Ford cont end s thatthere was no evi den ce to sho w thatthe ta sks t h a tG a r c i a p e r

fo r m e d w e r e r e l e v a n tt o t h e p u r p o s e fo r w h i c h h e w a s a p p o i n t e d

. W e dis ag re e. It is q uit e tr ue th at a g uardia n ad li tem is appoi nted only in a li mite d role i n al l but
ex cept ion al ci rc umstance s and i s p re v ented from r ecei v ing co mpensat ion for t he p e r fo r ma n c e o f a c t i v i t i e s t h a t fa l l o u t s i d e t h a t l i mi ted r ole

. S e e gen erally T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 173. F or d arg ues that many of the d ocument s t hat w er e l is ted a s "R ecei v ed and Rev iew ed" on Gar ci a's i nv oic e w er e bey ond t he s cope of the purp ose of his appoi ntment, and the r e fo r e , h e s h o u l d n o tb e c o mp e n s a t e d fo r r e v i e w i n g t h o s e d o c u me n t s
. T h e t r ial court, howev er, hea rd testim ony specif ically conce rning the billing of m any of these d o cu m e n ts , whi ch al m o stun ifo rm ly led to an exch a n ge s im ila r to th e fo llo wing: Q: Oka y

. . . . W hy

w oul d y ou rev iew

that ? A: Becau se I rec eiv ed i t, and I l ooked [ati t] and read ev er y doc ument that I recei v ed i n c onnec ti on w it h thi s c ase. Q: Is tha t y our un dersta ndin g, that you're supp osed to re vie w ev ery documentthatw as prov ide d to y ou? A : T h a t ' s wh a tI d o a s a n a t t o rn e y. T his testim ony w as eno ugh for the trial cou rt to f ind th at it w ould be "n eglig ent on the part of any l awy er not to g o ba ck and look at the f irst orig inal pe tition, the am end ed p etition s, [etc

. ] b e c a u s e b y

t h e i r v e r y n a t u r e , t h e y

w e r e a me n d e d fo r

a r e a s o n
. " T h e tes ti mony conv inc ed th e c o u rt , " th a t it i s p art of the duty of an ad li tem to g o bac k a nd s ee th at6

per haps his w ar d w asn' t l eft out in any of t hese [doc uments ]." H er e, t he tr ial co urt had at lea st some reason abl e bas is to bel iev e that all of the document s rev iew ed w er e r ele v ant to Ga rcia's appo intm ent and that rev iew ing those do cum ent s w as nece ssary to perform h is duty as a g uardia n ad li tem. Therefor e, w e ov er ru le Ford's first is sue. As Ford not es in it s b ri efs, the Supreme Cour t of Tex as has re v ersed compens ati on aw ards for guardia ns ad lit em w hen their bill ed task s fall outsi de the l imi ted role presc ri bed by R ule 173, but none of t hose ins tanc es inv olv ed the si mple re v iew ing of documents , and thus , w e find the hol din g s in thos e cas es to be ina ppl ic abl e to the facts of t his ca se. See Land R over

, 210 S.W .3d at 609 (rev ersi ng the aw ard becau se iti ncl uded c ompensat ion for clients tha t w ere ref used b ecau se of the ap poin tm ent , as w ell as for non -comp ensa ble ti me bill ed for

assi sti ng the pl ain ti ff 's co unsel ); Brow nsville-Valley Reg iona l Medical Ctr. v. Gam ez , 894 S.W .2d 7 53, 7 57 ( Tex . 199 5) ( re v ersin g the aw ard bec ause iti ncl uded
serv ices provided po st-judgem ent , af ter the app ointm ent w as ef fectu ally termin ate d). By its sec ond iss ue, Ford arg ues that the tr ial courtabused its di sc re ti on by order ing paym e n t o f

f e e s for serv ices tha t w ere pe rforme d by people othe r than Ga rcia himse lf becau se thes e peopl e w er e uni denti fied i n the i nv oic e, an d the re w as no ev ide nce to s how
a reason abl e hour ly ra te f o r any one ot her than Garci a. Here ag ain , w e l ook for any evidence o n w hich th e trial court cou ld have reason ably based its order. Th e t rial court spec ific all y

r eferenc ed s ev er al of the reason abl eness f act ors as a re ason for its dec is ion , noti ng that it w as tak ing int o acc ount, "the compl ex it y of a c ase suc h as thi s," "a r educt ion in [Garci a's ] hou rl y

bi ll abl e rate o f $500 dow n t o 300, " and the p ra cti cal abi li ty of maki ng a proper r ecommendat ion to the c our t "on a s hor

t t imel ine

. . . [of] 10 day s." Bas ed on the
ev ide nce heard on each of t hese factors, the cour t coul d hav e deter mined that the fee w as re asona ble , des pit e the anony mity of the other

i ndi v idu als on G ar ci a's st aff

. Mo re ov er , t heG a r c ia ’s te s tim o n y a t t h e h e a r in g in d ic a te d th a t, b e f o r e h is a p p o in tm e n t a s g u a r d ia n a d lite m in th is 1 case, he pr act i ced l aw f or nea r l y t hi r t y - f i v e y ear s, sat as a cou nt y cour t at l aw j udge f or si xt een y ear s, and hel d ot her pub l i c posi t i ons i ncl udi ng m uni ci pal cour t j udge, count y j udge ofH i dal go C ount y , T exas, m ay or of t he Ci t y of Edi nbur g, T exas, and C om m i ssi oner of t he T exas Adul t Pr obat i on Com m i ssi on. I t al so i ndi cat ed t hat G ar ci a ha d exp er i ence i n ad l i t em pr oceedi ngs, bot h i n pr esi di ng as a j udge, and ser v i ng a s a guar di an and at t or ney ad l i t em i n cou r t s acr oss Sout h T exas. 7 cour t s peci fical ly

heard ev ide nce that in addi ti on to G ar ci a, I saacTaw il , G ar ci a's co ll eag ue and leg al c o u n s e l d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g , s p e n ta s u b s t a n t i a l a mo u n to f t i me r e v i e w i n g and talking w ith Garcia ab out the case , and also not ed othe r individuals, w ith w hom the court
w as famili ar , t hat w er e k now n to hav e w or ked on th e cas e. This tes ti mony g av e the tr ial jud g e at lea st some indi cat ion as to the ident it y of the other

attor ney s for

w hom Garc ia w as bil li ng , and bas ed on thi s te st im o n y , t he j udg e c oul d hav e det er mined the fee w as re a s o n a b le

. T h e co u rt n o t e d , " we h a ve a re d u c t io n in a n h o u rl y b il la b le ra t e o f $ 5 0 0 d o wn to 30 0, w hic h I can onl y su rmi se
. . . is bec ause there w e re othe r lawy ers t hat p er haps
canno t c ommand the $ 5 0 0 per hour fee beca use of the l ack of ex per ien ce [w hen compared to Garci a]." W e bel ieve th e re wa s s uff ic ien t ev ide nce to find thatthe ra te 1 charged fo r oth er "u nide ntif ied" peo ple w as reaso nab le, an d the refore, we ov errule Ford's
sec ond i ss ue. By its third issue, Ford a rg ues th at th e trial co urt abu sed its discretion b ecau se the re
w as no ev iden ce sho w ing th e am oun t of time th at Ga rcia or his staf f actua lly spen t on ea ch of t he s i xty
- fi v e ta s k s t ha t w ere l i s te d on hi s i nv oi c e. The i nv oi c e i ts el f do es n otl i s t th e ti me expend ed o n ea ch task, nor the tota l am oun t of hou rs billed, butthe trial court he ard tes ti mony

thatw e bel iev e i s s uff ic ien t t o s uppor t it s o rd er
. It heard tes ti mony thatthe bil li ng ra te w as $300 pe r hour and that the total amount bil led w as $28,260. W hen di v ide d out , this m ean s that Garcia billed for a tota l of 94.2 hou rs. W hen the to tal nu mb er of hou rs billed is ma the ma tically dete rmina ble in this w ay, the trial court nee d no t hea r direct8

evi de nc e of t he t ot al n um be r o f ho urs b i l l ed

. R at he r , be c au s e th e tr i al c ou rt i nd i v i du all y cons ide re d bot h the tot al fee and eac h i ndi v idu al tas k l is ted o n Garci a’s i n voic e , w e c an assum e tha t the trial court comp ute d the tota l num ber of h ours be ing bill ed a nd, therea f ter,
re ferenc ed th e i nv oic e to deter mine if i t w as a reason abl e number of ho urs to c omplet e the si xty -fiv e tas ks l is ted. Cf

. Lesi kar v. Moon , 237 S.W .3d 361, 376- 77 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [14th D is t.] 2007) ( uphol din g an a w ard of atto rn ey ’s fees despi te the fact the a ttor ney “ w as not a ble break dow n i n det ail how m u ch t im e w as spentatt endi ng eac h hear ing or pr e p a rin g e a ch pl eadi ng ”)

. After noti ng thatthe inv oic e c lea rl y di d notco ntai n dat es or ti mes, the t ri al court n o te d t h at "i t c oul d hav e been bette r document ed, c ertai nly

. But to g o bac k a nd document w oul d, of c ourse, enta il mor e hours, more fees i n a c ase w her e the fees ar e al re ady

bei ng co ntes ted." H er e, t he tr ial co urt had some ev ide nce to de ter mine the tota l num ber of

hou rs billed, and some evidence to supp ort the f inding tha t the tasks listed on the invoice required 94.2 hou rs to comp lete, and theref ore, we o v errule Ford's thi rd i ss ue. III . C ONCL US I ON Fi ndi ng no a buse of di sc re ti on by the tr ial cour t bel ow , w e aff ir m the order g ra nti ng the g uardia n ad li tem, G ar ci a, c ompensat ion for h is se rv ic es in the a mount of $28, 260.00.

_________

_________

_________

___ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e
Del iv er ed and filed the 7th d ay of Oct ober , 201 0.