Opinion ID: 2543400
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Cross-Petition for Attorney's Fees

Text: Lenk filed a cross-petition seeking a remand to the trial court to determine an award of attorney's fees. Lenk claims that, because this issue was not addressed in her motion for partial summary judgment, it should now be reviewed by the trial court. Guaranty Bank responds that Lenk waived this argument by not briefing it at the court of appeals. The bank argues that both parties chose to narrow their appellate arguments, and should be limited to the issues briefed and the relief requested below. We agree with Guaranty Bank. In her motion for partial summary judgment, Lenk sought damages for Guaranty Bank's breach and asked that the sole remaining issue for determination in the case be her request for attorney's fees. The trial court issued a final judgment denying Lenk's motion. On appeal, Lenk focused on her breach claim, and asked the court of appeals to reverse and render in her favor, which the court did. Later, Lenk raised the issue of attorney's fees in a motion for rehearing, which the court of appeals denied. We decline to address Lenk's claim for attorney's fees because she did not properly raise the issue at the court of appeals. See, e.g., TEX.R.APP. P. 53.2(f) (explaining that, when a party files a petition for review in the Supreme Court, [i]f the matter complained of originated in the trial court, it should have been... assigned as error in the court of appeals). Thus, we deny Lenk's cross-petition.