Court Opinion

ID: 9772625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:24:24.431018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:46.366613
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion on Denial of Motion for Rehearing

DUNCAN, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I believe there is legally insufficient evidence to support an award of attorney’s fees in excess of $1,500, I believe the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $5,000, and I respectfully dissent.
As a preliminary matter, it appears that appellants’ second point of error in their motion for rehearing correctly points out a failure to consider an issue necessary to disposition of this appeal, i.e., Schaefer is not entitled to attorney’s fees at all, because he pledged the underlying judgment to Frost Bank as security for a loan. In this respect, appellants refer us to Davis v. First Nat’l Bank of Harlingen, 135 S.W.2d 259, 261 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1939, no writ), and Randolph v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Lubbock, 141 S.W.2d 1030,1034-35 (Tex.CivApp.-Amarillo 1940, writ dism’d judgm’t cor.).
Both Davis and Randolph state that, unless prohibited by the contract of pledge, the pledgee may sue and recover on a pledged instrument in his own name and apply the proceeds to the debt. From this appellants argue that only the pledgee may sue; otherwise, the debtor will be exposed to double *828liability for the same debt. I agree that the law must protect the debtor from double liability. However, when property is pledged, legal title remains in the pledgor. McAllen State Bank v. Texas Bank & Trust Co., 433 S.W.2d 167, 171 (Tex.1968). Legal title vests the pledgor with standing to sue for enforcement. See Randolph, 141 S.W.2d at 1034-35. To prevent double liability, if the pledgor sues and recovers on the debt, the debtor is relieved of liability and the pledgee is barred from further enforcement ■action. Id.
Absent supersedeas, Schaefer was thus entitled to enforce the judgment through a turnover order and, by statute, entitled to recover attorney’s fees. But in what amount? I agree with the majority that, in the absence of a special exception, a pleading seeking “at least $1,500” sufficiently supports an award in excess of $1,500. But I cannot agree that, when the movant’s uncontrovert-ed evidence establishes that $1,500 is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees, a trial judge has virtually unbridled discretion to award more — based upon a weighing of intangible factors that conflicts with the uneon-troverted testimony and that is nowhere supported by the record.
My disagreement with the majority begins with its reliance on an abuse of discretion standard divorced from traditional legal and factual sufficiency review. In support of its holding, the majority cites Oake v. Collin Cty., 692 S.W.2d 454, 455 (Tex.1985), and Landon v. Jeaw-Paul Budinger, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 931, 937 (Tex.App.-Austin 1987, no writ). Oake, however, held simply that in a declaratory judgment action the decision whether to award attorney’s fees is governed by an abuse of discretion standard; the Oake Court nowhere indicated that the reasonableness of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded was likewise to be reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard divorced from traditional sufficiency review. Landon, on the other hand, held that an abuse of discretion standard governed the trial court’s directing a remittitur of a jury’s finding of excessive attorney’s fees. However, in so holding, the Austin Court of Appeals made clear that it did so only because it believed itself bound by Flanigan v. Carswell, 159 Tex. 598, 324 S.W.2d 835 (1959), and it expressly invited the supreme court to revisit the issue. This invitation was accepted by the supreme court, and factual sufficiency became the standard of review in remittitur cases, including those involving attorney’s fees. See Snoke v. Republic Underwriters Ins. Co., 770 S.W.2d 777, 777-78 (Tex.1989) (per curiam) (court of appeals to review trial court’s direction of remittitur of attorney’s fees on sufficiency standard)); Larson v. Cactus Util. Co., 730 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex.1987) (court of appeals to review trial court’s direction of remittitur on sufficiency standard); Pope v. Moore, 711 S.W.2d 622, 624 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam) (court of appeals to direct remittitur on sufficiency standard).
In my view, these cases establish that the amount of an attorney’s fee award, like any other fact question, is subject to traditional legal and factually sufficiency review. Accordingly, the trial court abuses its discretion if its attorney’s fee award is not supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence. See Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, 801 S.W.2d 880, 882 (Tex.1990) (trial court abused its discretion in disregarding “evidence that is clear, direct and positive, and not contradicted by any other witness or attendant circumstances_”); Valley Coca-Cola Bottling v. Molina, 818 S.W.2d 146,149 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied) (where uncontroverted evidence established that reasonable appellate attorney’s fees were $11,779, trial court abused its discretion in awarding $20,000). Indeed, this court has reviewed attorney’s fees under the traditional test for legal sufficiency. See Jackson v. Barrera, 740 S.W.2d 67 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1987, no writ).
In this ease, the only evidence offered at trial on the issue of attorney’s fees was from Schaefer’s attorney, Robert Loree. Prior to testifying, Loree represented to the court that $1,500 was a reasonable fee for his work in this matter — filing the application for a turnover order, attending two hearings, and *829dealing with the district clerk regarding his rejection of appellants’ tendered supersedeas bond. Loree’s testimony on the attorney’s fee issue was brief: “I have nothing except that if I’m sworn in, I still ask for $1500 attorney’s fees on previous representations to the court, and they are reasonable attorney’s fees, in my opinion.” In this ease, as in Ragsdale, the “evidence ... is clear, direct and positive, and not contradicted by any other witness or attendant circumstances.” See Ragsdale, 801 S.W.2d at 882. Accordingly, I would hold that the trial court abused its discretion in disregarding the uncontroverted evidence, even — or perhaps especially — if it did so in favor of intangibles nowhere mentioned in this record.
The amount involved in this case is relatively small, but the principle of law promulgated by the majority is dangerous indeed— under the majority opinion, a trial judge has discretion to award over three times the amount claimed by the movant and established by the uncontroverted evidence. I respectfully dissent.