Case Name: Efren AVILA, Appellant, v. LONE STAR RADIOLOGY, Bob Kubicki, Dr. Kenneth Lustik, Family Care Pharmacy, Derrick Ford, and Karen Powell, Appellees
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2005-12-14
Citations: 183 S.W.3d 814
Docket Number: No. 10-04-00021-CV
Parties: Efren AVILA, Appellant, v. LONE STAR RADIOLOGY, Bob Kubicki, Dr. Kenneth Lustik, Family Care Pharmacy, Derrick Ford, and Karen Powell, Appellees.
Judges: Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 183
Pages: 814–825

Head Matter:
Efren AVILA, Appellant, v. LONE STAR RADIOLOGY, Bob Kubicki, Dr. Kenneth Lustik, Family Care Pharmacy, Derrick Ford, and Karen Powell, Appellees.
No. 10-04-00021-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.
Dec. 14, 2005.
Domingo A. Garcia, Dallas, for appellant.
John A. Stephens, Fulbright, Winnford & Marable, Waco, for appellees.
Lone Star Radiology & Dr. Tamara Up-tigrove, Dallas, pro se.
Bob Kubicki, Dallas, pro se.
Dr. Kenneth Lustik, Open Ah’ MRI, Dallas, pro se.
Family Care Pharmacy, Plano, pro se.
Derrick Ford, Dallas, pro se.
Karen Powell, Plano, pro se.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.

Opinion:
CORRECTED OPINION
FELIPE REYNA, Justice.
Avila appeals from a judgment in an interpleader action claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to award him attorney's fees. We reverse.
Background
Alfredo Saldana and Efren Avila were driving back from work in a tractor when a pick-up truck struck them from behind. The truck, owned by Andy Christopher, was driven by Daniel Alan Christopher. Avila and Saldana suffered multiple injuries and filed suit against Andy, Daniel, and B.G. Williams d/b/a Williams Asphalt, Saldana's employer. Andy and Daniel offered to settle with Avila for their policy limit, $20,000. Avila agreed, but his medical bills totaled over $70,000. Avila negotiated with his medical creditors and offered them a pro-rata share of the settlement less attorney's fees. The medical creditors refused. Subsequently, Avila filed an in-terpleader action, and the trial court divided the settlement among the providers, but did not award Avila attorney's fees from the settlement funds. The trial court severed this cause from the remainder of the issues in the case, and Avila appealed.
Attorney's Fees in an Interpleader Action
Avila argues in his sole issue that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award him attorney's fees.
An interpleader action permits an innocent stakeholder facing rival claims to allow the courts to decide who is entitled to the fund and thus avoid the peril of acting as judge and jury itself. Union Gas Corp. v. Gisler, 129 S.W.3d 145, 153 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003, pet. denied); Olmos v. Pecan Grove Mun. Utility Dist., 857 S.W.2d 734, 741 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no pet.). The elements of an interpleader action are: (1) the party is either subject to, or has reasonable grounds to anticipate, rival claims to the same fund or property; (2) the party has not unreasonably delayed filing an action for interpleader; and (3) the party has unconditionally tendered the fund or property into the court's registry. Hanzel v. Herring, 80 S.W.3d 167, 173 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, no pet.) (citing Bryant v. United Shortline Inc., 984 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth), aff'd, 972 S.W.2d 26 (Tex.1998)). "The in-terpleader asks only that he be released and discharged from any liability on account of the proceeds, that he recover his attorney's fees for bringing the interpleader, and that he be paid his fees and costs out of the proceeds." Id. However, the award of attorney fees is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Olmos, 857 S.W.2d at 741; Beneficial Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Trinity Nat'l Bank, 763 S.W.2d 52, 56 (TexApp.-Dallas 1988, writ denied).
Several creditors claimed an interest in Avila's settlement. There is no evidence that Avila delayed in bringing the interpleader action once it became clear that the matter could not be resolved. Further, Avila tendered the settlement amount to the trial court. Therefore, as an innocent stakeholder, Avila is entitled to recover attorney fees under Texas inter-pleader law. United States v. Ray Thomas Gravel Co., 380 S.W.2d 576, 581 (Tex.1964) (holding that in Texas an innocent stakeholder is entitled to attorney's fees); Heggy v. American Trading Employee Retirement Account Plan, 110 S.W.3d 692, 703 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet denied); Olmos, 857 S.W.2d at 741. Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award Avila reasonable attorney's fees for bring the interpleader action. Accordingly, we sustain Avila's sole issue.
Conclusion
We reverse and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Chief Justice GRAY dissenting.