Case Name: Robert G. WILEMAN, Appellant, v. William W. WADE, ex ux., Wanda Sue Wade, Appellees
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1983-12-15
Citations: 665 S.W.2d 519
Docket Number: No. 05-82-00729-CV
Parties: Robert G. WILEMAN, Appellant, v. William W. WADE, ex ux., Wanda Sue Wade, Appellees.
Judges: Before STEPHENS, SPARLING and ALLEN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 665
Pages: 519–523

Head Matter:
Robert G. WILEMAN, Appellant, v. William W. WADE, ex ux., Wanda Sue Wade, Appellees.
No. 05-82-00729-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
Dec. 15, 1983.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 16, 1984.
G. Robert Wileman, Dallas, for appellant.
Donald E. Godwin, Maxwell, Godwin & Carlton, David L. Butler, Maxwell, Godwin & Carlton, Dallas, for appellees.
Before STEPHENS, SPARLING and ALLEN, JJ.

Opinion:
STEPHENS, Justice.
Robert G. Wileman, an attorney, intervened in a divorce action between William and Wanda Wade, seeking attorney's fees for his former representation of Wanda. The trial court found the sum of $4,500.00, to be the reasonable fees to which Wileman was entitled, and that the sum due was a community debt. Judgment was then entered against Wanda for one-half of the sum, and against William for the other one-half. Each party was ordered to pay their respective sums in monthly installments of $50.00. Wileman contends that the judgment should have been joint and several, and that payment in installments was improper. We agree and accordingly we reform the judgment of the trial court.
First, in addressing the question of joint and several liability, we note that the trial judge found the attorney's fees to be a debt of the community: This finding established the liability of both William and Wanda to Wileman. Although the trial judge may divide the community estate in a manner which she deems just and right, this discretion does not extend to interference with the rights of third party creditors. Broadway Drug Store of Galveston, Inc. v. Trowbridge, 435 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1968, no writ); Inwood National Bank of Dallas v. Hoppe, 596 S.W.2d 183 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
In addressing the question of ordering the judgment paid in installments, we first look to TEX.R.CIV.P. 301 which requires that the judgment in a case "shall be so framed as to give the party all the relief to which he may be entitled...." The judgment in this case, by its award of a sum certain payable in future installments, if permitted to stand, is of significantly less value than a judgment for the full amount, presently due. The very concept of awarding "reasonable attorney's fees" embodies a present award of a sum which is adequate to compensate the attorney for the services rendered. An award of damages for future pain and suffering would be unfair and inequitable if not reduced to present value. By the same reasoning, a present award for past services, payable in future installments would be unfair and inequitable. A judgment so structured would, in effect, be inadequate compensation for past services rendered.
In the case of United States v. Bauman, 56 F.Supp. 109 (D.Or.1943), a condemnation case, the court discussed the meaning of "just compensation". The court stated that: "No authority exists nor ever has existed for the payment of just compensation by installments." Bauman, 56 F.Supp. at 115. The author of the opinion in United States v. 9.94 Acres of Land in City of Charleston, 51 F.Supp. 478 (E.D.S. C.1943), directly addressed the question by stating: "Just compensation in my opinion means exactly what it says, and it means that the owner himself is entitled to receive his compensation; not that his estate or his children or his grandchildren are to receive installment payments and perhaps inherit a law suit in the far future." 9.94 Acres, 51 F.Supp. at 483-484.
Our own courts have concluded that "just compensation" and "adequate compensation" are synonymous and that to be adequate the compensation must be "just," and vice versa. State v. Hale, 96 S.W.2d 135, 141 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1936), modified, 136 Tex. 29, 146 S.W.2d 731 (1941). Finally, we note that, in the case of Frankel v. Heym, 466 F.2d 1226 (3rd Cir.1972), the United States government unsuccessfully sought to have a large award for damages take the form of a judicially established trust for the benefit of the recipient, rather than a lump sum judgment. The court noted that "courts of law had no power at common law to enter a judgment in terms other than a simple award of money damages", and refused the government's request. Frankel, 466 F.2d at 1228-1229.
We conclude that the term "reasonable attorney's fees" is synonymous with "just" and "adequate" compensation and that Wileman should recover judgment against William and Wanda, jointly and severally, in the sum of $4,500.00. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reformed to grant judgment against William W. Wade, and Wanda Sue Wade, jointly and severally, in the sum of $4,500.00, and to strike any provision for installment payments of the judgment.