Court Opinion

ID: 9771383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:41:34.146056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:40:58.741194
License: Public Domain

OVARD, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I do so only to that portion of the majority opinion that awards delay damages under rule 84 of the *678Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. As the majority recognizes, we can assess rule 84 damages only when we find that (1) the appeal was taken for delay, and (2) there was no sufficient cause. Naydan v. Naydan, 800 S.W.2d 637, 643 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990, no writ). I do not find that either of these criteria have been satisfied.
Delay
At the outset, I am not convinced the appeal was taken for delay. The final divorce decree contained a division of assets and debts as well as an award of attorney’s fees. Husband, however, appeals only that portion of the judgment that awarded wife $7500 in attorney’s fees. He did not appeal the trial court’s division of assets or debts.
Without findings of fact, husband relied on a docket sheet entry to support his factual position that the trial court erroneously awarded attorney’s fees. He directs us to Chiles v. Chiles, 779 S.W.2d 127, 129 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, writ denied), which provides that attorney’s fees can be awarded only under the trial court’s equitable division of community property. Husband argues that because the trial court found the community property was of no value or nominal value, there was no equitable division of community property on which to base the award of attorney’s fees. Thus, he contends that any award of attorney’s fees was in error. Husband’s limited challenge of the award of attorney’s fees, and not the division of assets and debts or any other aspect of the judgment, seems to militate against a tactic of delay.
Sufficient Cause
Next, in determining whether there was sufficient cause, we look at the case from the advocate’s viewpoint to determine whether he had a reasonable basis to believe the case would be reversed. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Whatley, 742 S.W.2d 475, 479 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, no writ). The majority relies primarily on husband’s mistaken belief that the docket sheet entry, in the absence of findings of fact, could be used to support his argument. As the majority correctly holds, the docket sheet entry could not be used as a substitute for findings of fact. See N-S-W Corp. v. Snell, 561 S.W.2d 798, 799 (Tex.1977). Husband’s advocate was simply incorrect concerning the use of the docket entries. But, I cannot say that his misunderstanding, when appealing only the award of attorney’s fees, provided no reasonable grounds to believe reversal could be achieved. See Star-Tel, Inc. v. Nacogdoches Telecommunications, 755 S.W.2d 146, 150 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no writ) (sanctions inappropriate where appellant was confused over the prerequisite notice section of the DTPA and the appropriate remedy for noncompliance).
Appeal is a sacred and valuable right. Husband’s advocate’s reliance on the docket sheet entries, albeit in error, was some indication that he had a basis for a successful appeal. See Loyd Elec. Co. v. Millett, 767 S.W.2d 476, 484 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1989, no writ). I would overrule wife’s cross-point and sustain the trial court’s judgment.