Court Opinion

ID: 9764006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:07:03.71277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:52.327034
License: Public Domain

BILL VANCE, Justice,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority’s decision to uphold the award of attorney’s fees under the Declaratory Judgment Act (the Act).
The majority recognizes the rule that the Act may not be utilized as a vehicle to recover attorney’s fees when interposed through a counterclaim that adds nothing to the suit, because the issues are already pending before the court. It seems, however, to place much emphasis on the fact that Reata and Shield filed their suit under the Act first. I am not persuaded that this is the proper inquiry. In fact, focusing on who filed first encourages a “race to the courthouse” to file a declaratory judgment action in an attempt to convert a non-attorneys-fees case into one in which attorneys fees can be awarded. I also think the fact that the court realigned the parties should not affect this determination.
I believe the better course would be to examine the controversy at the time of trial, based on the pleadings on which the case is tried, to see if a party is then seeking a remedy under the Act that will not be effectively afforded by their other claims and defenses. See Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 796 S.W.2d 763, 772 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1990, writ denied); Joseph v. Ranger, 188 S.W.2d 1013, 1015 (Tex. Civ. App. — Eastland 1945, writ refused w.o.m). As the court said in Joseph:
When the parties as here have once locked horns and are demanding forcible sanctions, there is no longer room for judicial declarations separate from those which will be implicit or- express in the final judgment or decree.
Joseph, 188 S.W.2d at 1015.
Texas adheres to the rule that attorney’s fees are not recoverable in an action unless provided for by statute or by contract between the parties. New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Texas Indus., Inc., 414 S.W.2d 914, 915 (Tex.1967). Thus, as a general rule, a prevailing party is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees from the opposing party. Turner v. Turner, 385 S.W.2d 230, 233 (Tex.1964) More and more, however, courts are awarding attorney’s fees under the Act when it adds nothing to the resolution of the dispute. I believe that when a party invokes the Act in a way that would “serve no useful purpose,” it should not be allowed to form the basis for awarding attorney’s fees. See Joseph, 188 S.W.2d at 1015. Again, I would make that determination based on the pleadings on the date of trial, and considering the judgment ultimately rendered.
Here, after the court realigned the parties and they repled, Reata and Shield interposed their claim under the Act along with their claim for damages for breach of contract.1 At the time of trial, Brush had claims for fraud and recission. Reata and Shield had a claim for breach of contract, on which they prevailed and were awarded damages. I fail to see how their claims under the Act served any useful purpose in resolving the dispute between the parties. The judgment reflects that it did not. Accordingly, I would reform the judgment and delete the award of attorney’s fees to Reata and Shield.

. Although attorney’s fees are available in suits on contracts, as the majority points out, they were awarded only on the basis of the Act.