Court Opinion

ID: 9675222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:45:58.845234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:32.580398
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
We have carefully reviewed the Motion for Rehearing submitted to us by Appellant, Mattie McDonald, dba Broadway’s S & S Flower & Gift Shop, and have determined that the motion should be overruled. However, we think it necessary to point out that our decision is not in conflict with Duncan v. Butterowe, Inc., 474 S.W.2d 619 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston, 14th District, 1971 no writ). The conclusion reached by the Houston Court of Civil Appeals (14th District) relative to sustaining the summary judgment on a sworn account for failure to deny the account in the terms required by Rule 185 Tex.R.Civ.P., is consistent with the conclusion we have reached involving similar facts. On the surface, it would appear that we have reached opposite results concerning the matter of whether the trial court had the authority to award reasonable attorney’s fees, but on close examination, it will be seen that the amount awarded for attorney’s fees in the Duncan case exceeded the amount prescribed by the current standard Bar Minimum Fee Schedule. Thus, the Houston Court concluded that the amount awarded as attorney’s fees could not be said to have been reasonable as a matter of law. The State Bar Minimum Fee Schedule suggests that, in the collection of commercial accounts, a minimum fee of 33)4 per cent of the amount collected is reasonable “with or without the filing of a suit and irrespective of whether there is a trial.” In the Duncan case, Butterowe, Inc., sued for $1,491.-65, plus an additional sum of $500.00 as attorney fees. It is obvious that the $500.00 awarded by the trial court was in excess of 33)4 per cent of $1,491.65, and therefore could not be prima facie evidence of a reasonable attorney’s fee prescribed by the current State Bar Minimum Fee Schedule. Since the $500.00 fee exceeded the State Bar Minimum Fee Schedule, it became a fact issue as to whether or not such amount was reasonable, to be determined on remand of the case, because the Court of Civil Appeals pointed out that it could not say that “the right to a $500.00 attorney’s fee was established as a matter of law.”
In the case before this Court, the amount sued for was $248.00, plus interest, attorney’s fees of $60.00, and all costs. The attorney’s fee of $60.00 falls within the suggested minimum fee of 33)4 per cent and would therefore be prima facie evidence that such fee was reasonable as provided by the express language of amended Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat., art. 2226, *339(1971). While prima facie evidence of reasonableness may be rebutted, Appellant made no attempt to do so in this case. Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing is overruled.