Opinion ID: 2831499
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Continued Litigation and Johnson II

Text: In April 2005, a year after the court of appeals dismissed the appeal in Johnson I, Johnson filed suit in Iowa, where Ventling resided, to domesticate the Texas decree in an attempt to collect on the judgment in Iowa. Almost two years later, in January 2007,4 the Iowa court ruled that the agreed alimony had not been reduced to a final judgment that could be enforced in Iowa, granting Ventling a stay as to these amounts. However, the Iowa court allowed enforcement of the part of the decree that awarded Johnson the $25,537 lump sum. 4 This delay was not caused by either party. The Iowa court opened its order by “apologiz[ing] to the parties and their counsel for the delay in this ruling.” 4 In October 2007, Johnson renewed her enforcement motion in Texas in an effort to reduce the unpaid $142,500 in contractual alimony to a final, enforceable judgment. She also requested postjudgment interest dating back to August 1997, as well as damages for adverse tax consequences and attorney’s fees. Ventling asserted defenses of fraud, accident, mistake, estoppel, illegality, res judicata, statute of limitations, failure of consideration, and statute of frauds. On June 16, 2009, the trial court rendered judgment denying all relief requested by Johnson. The court found that the 1995 decree was not void but that its alimony provision was unenforceable. Johnson again appealed, arguing that the contractual alimony provision was enforceable and that she was entitled to judgment on the amount of alimony due ($142,500), as well as interest and attorney’s fees.5 On October 21, 2010, the court of appeals reversed, holding that, because the decree was not void and the contractual alimony terms were incorporated into the judgment of divorce, those provisions were binding on the parties. Johnson II, 2010 WL 4156459, at –7. The court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court, instructing it to grant Johnson’s enforcement motion and award her (1) $142,500 in unpaid contractual alimony, (2) appropriate prejudgment interest, and (3) reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs. Id. at , . 5 Johnson did not challenge the trial court’s judgment to the extent it denied her request for the lump-sum property settlement, which she agreed had already been awarded in Iowa, or her request for damages for adverse tax consequences. 5 C. Judgment on Remand and Johnson III: The Current Appeal Following the court of appeals’ decision in Johnson II, Johnson moved the trial court for an award of: (1) $145,935.62, consisting of the $142,500 in unpaid contractual alimony and $3,435.62 in prejudgment interest accruing on that amount from September 23, 1997 (the date Johnson asserted that she initially moved to enforce the decree)6 until December 19, 1997 (the date the trial court held its initial hearing on the enforcement motion); (2) postjudgment interest accruing on the $142,500 from December 20, 1997 until the judgment was satisfied; (3) past attorney’s fees ($250,402.09) and costs ($6,970.61), plus postjudgment interest on those amounts; and (4) conditional attorney’s fees in the event of a third appeal. Ventling stipulated to the $3,435.62 in prejudgment interest, but disputed Johnson’s entitlement to postjudgment interest, arguing that the court of appeals had instructed the trial court to award only prejudgment interest and that postjudgment interest was available only once an actual judgment was rendered in Johnson’s favor. Ventling also disputed the amount of the requested attorney’s fees. The trial court held a hearing on Johnson’s claims for attorney’s fees and costs, which included testimony regarding the requested conditional appellate fees. On February 21, 2012, the trial court rendered judgment granting Johnson’s enforcement motion and awarding Johnson (1) $142,500 in unpaid contractual alimony, (2) $3,435.62 in prejudgment interest, (3) $70,275 in past attorney’s fees, (4) $20 in court costs, and (5) postjudgment interest accruing at a rate of six 6 W e note that the record reflects that Johnson actually filed her enforcement motion on September 26, 1997. 6 percent on the entire amount from February 21, 2012.7 One month later, on March 21, 2012, the trial court signed an amended judgment, which was identical to the February 21 judgment except that the postjudgment interest rate was adjusted from six percent to five percent. The trial court agreed with Ventling that retroactive postjudgment interest was precluded under the court of appeals’ opinion. After Johnson unsuccessfully moved the trial court to further modify its judgment, this appeal—her third—followed.8 In the court of appeals, Johnson argued that the trial court erred in its award of interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. Johnson III, ___ S.W.3d at ___. On December 19, 2013, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment as to past attorney’s fees and costs, but reversed as to the judgment’s failure to award retroactive postjudgment interest on the alimony award or conditional appellate fees. Id. at ___. Relying on our decision in Phillips v. Bramlett, 407 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. 2013), the court of appeals held that the trial court could have, and should have, rendered judgment awarding Johnson $142,500 in contractual alimony on January 9, 1998—the date the court first ruled on her enforcement motion—based on the evidence then available. ___ S.W.3d at ___ n.8. Therefore, the court concluded that postjudgment interest began to accrue on that amount as of January 9, 1998. Id. at ___. However, with respect to past attorney’s fees and costs, the court noted 7 The total liquidated amount awarded as of February 21 was $216,230.62. On March 9, Ventling deposited $216,834.80 into the court’s registry, which covered the awarded amount plus 6% postjudgment interest on that amount through the date of deposit. 8 On April 10, 2012, Johnson requested that the trial court release the now-undisputed $142,500 in principal from the court’s registry. The court released the funds to Johnson on April 25. 7 that no judgment was rendered for such fees and costs until February 21, 2012, and held that postjudgment interest on those amounts accrued from that date. Id. at ___ n.8. In summary, in Johnson III the court of appeals (1) reversed with respect to postjudgment interest on the $142,500 damage award, holding that such interest began accruing on January 9, 1998; (2) reversed and remanded with respect to postjudgment interest on past attorney’s fees and costs, instructing the trial court to award such interest at five percent accruing as of February 21, 2012; (3) reversed the denial of Johnson’s request for conditional appellate attorney’s fees and remanded for a determination of the amount of those fees, with postjudgment interest of five percent accruing on that amount as of the date the appeal was perfected; and (4) affirmed the remainder of the trial court’s judgment. Id. at ___. Ventling filed a petition for review, arguing that the trial court’s judgment was correct because (1) no final judgment was entered until 2012, (2) postjudgment interest cannot start accruing before the date of the final judgment, and (3) Johnson is not entitled to attorney’s fees for this appeal.9