i i i i i i



### OPIN ION
No
. 04 -0 8- 00 46 8- CV De nn is WI LK

ER SON , Appellant
v . ATASCOSA WIL DLIF E SUPP LY,

Appellee Fr om the 81st J udicial District Court, Atascosa County , Texas Trial Court No. 04-01-0065- CVA Honora ble Stella H. Sax on, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: November 18, 2009 A F F I R M E D De nn is Wi lke rs on fi le d a lim ite d a pp e a l on the so le iss ue of wh e the r the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in inc lud ingfe e s f

or an atto rn e y ’s tr ave l time in the atto rn e y ’s fe e s awa rd . We ho ld t

he tr ia l c ourt

did
no t e rr and a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.04
- 08
- 00 46 8- CV

1 ... S e e e .g ., B a rf

i eld v. N ew Y o rk C i t y H ea l t h & H o sp s. C o rp . , 53 7 F.3d 1 3 2 , 14 0 (2d C i r. 20 0 8 )( af f i rming c o m p e n sa tio n o f t ra v e l t im e a t ha lf- ra te in F S L A c a se , “in a c c o rd a n c e w ith e sta b lishe d [S e c o n d C irc u it] cu sto m ” ); In r e Babc oc k & Wi l c ox Co
. , 526 F. 3d 824, 828 ( 5t h C i r . 2008)( ev al u at i n g Fi f t h C i r cu i t pre ce den t f

r om v ar i ou s t y pes of cases and co ncl ud i ng a s a general rul e t hat “i t is no t a n a b use of dis cret i o n t o dis co unt non-worki ng (and even wo rki ng) tra v e l t im e ” ); I

nt er f ai t h Cm t y. O r g. v. H oney wel lI

nt ' lI nc . , 4 26 F
. 3d 6 94 , 7 11 (3d C i r . 200 5)( t r ave l t i me i s comp ens at ed a s p a rt o f a tto rn e y’s fe e s a n d c o sts b a se d o n the p re v a ili n g ra te in the fo ru m o f t h e li tiga tio n .); W at ki ns v. F ordi ce , 7 F. 3d 4 5 3 , 45 9 (5t h C i r. 19 9 3 )( af f i rming d i st ri ct co urt ’ s d eci si o n t o disc o unt hourl y rat e b i l l ed f o r t ravel t i m e, i n a V o t i ng R igh ts A c t ca se ); H enr y v . W eber m ei er , 7 3 8 F .2 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 4 ( 7 th C ir. 1 9 8 4 )( re a so n a b le a tto rn e y’s f e e s p re su m p tive ly inc lud e re a so n a b le tra v e l t im e b ill e d a t sa m e h o u rly ra te a s n o rm a l wo rk ing ti m e ); Col ber tv . Fur um ot o Real t y, I nc . , 144 F. Supp. 2d 251 , 261 ( S. D
. N
. Y
. 200 1)( expl ai ni ng t hat t r ave l t i me may be f ul l y r ei mb ur s ed i f

t he mo vi ng par t y s ubmi t t ed a n a ff id a v it sta ting tha t wo rk w a s a c c o m p lishe d d u rin g tha t t im e ); Jennet t e v . Ci t y of New York

, 800 F. Su pp. 1165, 1170 ( S. D
. N
. Y
. 1 99 2)( r educi ng at t orn ey s ’ s f ees b y 5 0% f

or t r ave l t i me becau s e t i me s pent i n t r ans i t i s not as product i ve as t i m e at t he o f

f i ce o r i n co urt . ”).

- 2- B ACKG ROUND Th is d isp ute ov e r a

tto rn e y ’s fe e s ari se s f

ro m a su it b y At a sc os a Wild lif e Sup ply a gainst Wil kerson f

or the fa ilure to pay

a debt f or cor n fee d and dama g e to a re nted trailer . Atascosa Wil dlife Supply soug ht attorney ’s fe es pursua nt to chapter

38 of t he Tex as Civil P rac tice and Re medies Code. The c ase was t ri ed t o a jury on all issues except attorney ’s fe es, which the parties a g ree d to have de ter min e d b y

the tr ia l c ourt . T he jud g me nt a wa rd e d $ 6, 27 5. 00 in d ama g e s and $2 0, 31 2. 50 in
atto rn e y ’s fe e s in

fa vo r o f A ta sc os a

Wild life Su

pp ly . Wil ke rs on

c onte nd s th e tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in including $5,500.00 f

or trave l time in the attorney ’s fee awa rd, arguing the re is no leg al authority and no evidenc e to support the aw ard. D I S CUS S I ON Many jurisdictions permit attorney s to recove r fe es for trave l t i m e, althoug h most have not p e r m i t t e d a f u l l r e c o v e r

y. 1 T h e p arties have not cited nor have w e discove red a

ny Texas case that prec ludes the re cover

y of fe es for

an attorne y ’s t rave l time. Atascosa Wil dlife S upply cited one T exas
case that allowed the inclusion of full trave l time in the attorney ’s fe es aw ard. See Pr estw oo d v . S e ttle , No. 03-07-00111- CV, 2008 WL537159, at *9 (Tex. A pp.—Austin Febr

uary 28, 2008, pet. denied)
. Th e qu e sti on

of wh e the r atto rn e y ’s fe e s f or tr ave l ti me are re c ov e ra ble wa s n ot directly

ra ise d in04
- 08
- 00 46 8- CV

- 3- Prestwood , rathe r, the issue wa s only whether the total fee awa

rd wa s rea sonable. The attorney te s tif ied his $1,000 fee w as reasonable and nec essar y in the case based on w ork he a ctually perf ormed, including the time he spent commutingto T ravis County , which he use d to prac tice his argument for the sche duled hea

ring
. Id . The c ourt conc luded the trial co u rt did not commit error in aw arding attorney ’s fe es. Id
. The fa ctors a fac t finder should consider when de terminingthe re asonable ness of a fee include: the time, labor, a

nd skill required to proper ly perf orm the leg al servic e; the novelty and diffic ulty

of the qu e s ti o n s inv o lv e d ; th e c u s to ma r y f e e s c h ar g e d in th e lo c a l le g a l c o mm un it y f o r simil ar le g al service s; the amount involved an d t h e results obtained; the nature a nd leng th of the prof

essional relationship wit h the client; and t h e ex perie nce, r eputation and a bility of the lawy er pe rfor

ming the service s. See Ar thu r A nd

e rse n &Co. v . Pe rry

Eq uip . Co rp ., 945 S.W .2d 812, 818 (Tex. 1997). Ther e does not ne ed to be evidenc e on all these fac tors in or der to suppor t a n attorn ey ’s fe es awa

rd. See Bu rn sid e Ai r Co nd

iti on ing & He ati ng

, I nc . v . T. S. Y

ou ng Cor p ., 113 S.W .3d 889, 897-98 (Te x . App.— Dallas 2003, no pet.). The trial court can also look at the entire rec ord and the common knowledg e of the par ticipants as lawyers a

nd judge s, and the relative succ ess of the pa rties when de termining
rea sonable a

nd nece ssary

attorney ’s fe es. Id . at 897. Th e amou nt of an atto rn e y ’s fe e s awa rd re sts in the so un d dis c re tio n of the tr ia l c ourt , and its judgme nt will not be rever sed on appe al abse nt a clea r abuse of discre tion. See A MX Enters., L.L.P. v. Master Re alty Corp., 283 S.W .3d 506, 516 (Tex. A pp.—For t Worth 2009, n o p et.); Ba ir C ha se Pro p . Co . , L L C

v. S &K Dev. Co., 260 S.W .3d 133, 138 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, pet. denied); Alford v . Johnston , 224 S.W .3d 291, 298 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, pet. denied) . Abuse of disc retion
occur s when the tria l court ac ted without refe renc e to any gu i d i n g ru l es and princ iples. Cire v.04
- 08
- 00 46 8- CV

- 4- Cummings , 134 S.W .3d 835, 839 (Tex. 2004). A trial court’s awar d of attorne y ’s fe es ca n be set a side only if it was ar

bitrary or unre asonable
. Id
. Th e tr ia l c ourt

too k ju dic ia l no tic e of

the c ourt ’s fi le and

the a ffi dav it of Gi lbe rt

Ad ams, Atasc o s a W ildlife Supply ’s attorne y . Adams’s a ffidavit deta iled the time expended and the
corr espondingactivities conduc ted on the under lying la wsuit. Adams states in his a f f id a vit that his fees fo r t ra ve l ti me we re re a so na

ble and ne c e ssa

ry c on sid e ri ng the dis tanc e tr ave le d and we re re qu ir e d in
connec tion with the prosecution of this lawsuit. Adams also testified be fore the t rial court. Adams testified he r epre sented Ata scosa Wildlife Supply since the inc eption of its claim ag ainst Wi lkerson in 2003 and t h at h i s employ ment for At a sc os a Wild lif e Sup ply in t he un de rl ying lit ig atio n pre c lud e d him fr om oth e r e mpl oy me nt. Ad ams also testified the c ustomary fee for c ommercia l litig ation is $300 an hour for case s such as this and he c ha rg e d $ 25 0 a

n hou r. Ad ams sou g ht co mpe ns atio n for e ig hty-o ne and

a qu art e r h ours inc ur

re d in prosec uting this ca se to judg ment. He testified that althoug h he only soug ht f ees f or twenty -two hours of trave l t i me, he a ctually spent forty

hours trave ling on c ase r elated matters. Adams itemized four hours for the time he was trave ling as a passeng er and actively working on the ca se. Adams testified th atd ur i n gth i rty- s i x h o ur s , h e w a s n o ta c t i v e l y w o r k i n go nth e c a s e , h e w a s o n l y dr i v i n g . A c c o r d i n g l y, he so ught f

e e s f or on ly on e -h a lf of tho se ho ur s. C ONCL US I ON The trial c ourt did not abuse its discretion in a war ding attorney ’s fe es for trave l time in li g ht of the e vidence and the f

actor s considere d in making such an awa rd. The travel time wa s reduc ed for the time when Ada

ms was not actively working on case related matters. The re is nothingin the rec ord04
- 08
- 00 46 8- CV

- 5- to indicate the tria l court’s d ec i s i o n to include Adam’ s travel time in the attorne y ’s fe es aw ard w as
unrea sonable or a

rbitrar y . The judg ment is affirme d.

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice