Court Opinion

ID: 9661728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:47:35.334403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:33.028761
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant insists that Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc. v. Campesi, 580 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1979), rev’d on other grounds, 592 S.W.2d 340 (1979), is applicable. The Corpus Christi Court of Civil Appeals held that since Cam-pesi was tried prior to the effective date of the amendment to Article 2226, which now authorizes recovery of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a properly brought suit on an oral or written contract, the court could not give the statutory amendment retroactive effect. We do not disagree with that court’s holding. The case is simply not applicable to the case before this Court. Here the case was filed and tried after the effective date of the amendment to Article *3482226. Further, appellant stipulated that appellee’s attorney was to receive a reasonable fee as set by the court. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.