Court Opinion

ID: 9374119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:22:06.007899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:44.858248
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-21-00100-CV

                                     COURT OF APPEALS

                        THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                           CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

ARTURO GARCIA AND
AURELIA GARCIA,                                                                               Appellants,

                                                           v.

HEB GROCERY CO.,                                                                                  Appellee.

                         On appeal from the 398th District Court
                               of Hidalgo County, Texas.

                                                OPINION

     Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva
                      Opinion by Justice Longoria

        Appellants Arturo Garcia and Aurelia Garcia challenge the trial court’s award of

certain costs to appellee H.E. Butt Grocery Company, L.P. (HEB). 1 By one issue with

        1  Appellee was named as “HEB Grocery Co.” in appellants’ original petition and in the style of the
final judgment. In its motion for entry of final judgment, appellee referred to itself as “H-E-B, L.P. incorrectly
named HEB GROCERY CO.” The body of the final judgment, which was drafted by appellee, refers to
multiple subparts, appellants contend the trial court abused its discretion in taxing certain

expenses as court costs. We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further

proceedings.

                                         I.         BACKGROUND

        Appellants filed suit against HEB seeking compensation for personal injuries

arising out of a slip and fall incident that occurred at an HEB grocery store. A jury returned

a verdict in favor of HEB. HEB filed a motion for entry of final judgment, to which it

attached a Bill of Costs detailing the costs it sought to recover. HEB also attached a

proposed judgment which would award HEB $12,308.53 in costs of court. Appellants

responded, objecting to some of the costs sought by HEB. Specifically, appellants

objected to costs related to: video recording of depositions, copies of deposition

transcripts, video trial support, “Shana Lively Transcripts,” medical records, and “‘e[-]filing

fees’ not shown to be costs incurred in making necessary filings.” The trial court entered

the final judgment as proposed by HEB, providing that appellants would take nothing by

way of their claims and awarding HEB $12,308.53 in costs. This appeal ensued.

                                              II.    ANALYSIS

A.      Standard of Review & Applicable Law

        A successful party in a lawsuit is entitled to recover its costs from its adversary.

TEX. R. CIV. P. 131. We review an award of costs under an abuse of discretion standard.

Mitchell v. Bank of Am., N.A., 156 S.W.3d 622, 630 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied).

appellee as “H-E-B, L.P. incorrectly named H.E. BUTT Grocery Company, L.P.” On appeal, appellee refers
to itself as “H.E. Butt Grocery Company, L.P.” It is undisputed that all of these monikers refer to the same
party.
                                                      2
We may reverse a trial court for abuse of discretion only if, after searching the record, it

is clear the court’s decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. See City of Houston v.

Woods, 138 S.W.3d 574, 580 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (citing

Simon v. York Crane & Rigging Co., 739 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex. 1987)).

       “The general rule in Texas is that expenses incurred in prosecuting or defending a

suit are not recoverable as costs unless recovery for those items is expressly provided

for by statute, rule, or under principles of equity.” Gumpert v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., 312

S.W.3d 237, 239 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) (citing Ferry v. Sackett, 204 S.W.3d

911, 912 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.); Phillips v. Wertz, 579 S.W.2d 279, 280 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Shaikh v. Aerovias de Mexico, 127 S.W.3d 76, 82

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.)). Whether a particular expense is

recoverable under statute or rule as a court cost is a question of law, which we review de

novo. Sackett, 204 S.W.3d at 912.

              A judge of any court may include in any order or judgment all costs,
       including the following:

          (1) fees of the clerk and service fees due the county;

          (2) fees of the court reporter for the original of stenographic transcripts
              necessarily obtained for use in the suit;

          (3) masters, interpreters, and guardians ad litem appointed pursuant to
              these rules and state statutes; and

          (4) such other costs and fees as may be permitted by these rules and
              state statutes.

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 31.007(b).

                                             3
B.      Recoverable Court Costs

        Appellants make general assertions that costs of video recordings of depositions,

copies of deposition transcripts, and “video trial support” are not recoverable as court

costs. 2 Citing Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 140 and several cases, appellants argue

that the trial court erred in awarding such expenses as court costs. See In re Nalle Plastics

Fam. Ltd. P’ship, 406 S.W.3d 168, 175 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding); Hatfield v.

Solomon, 316 S.W.3d 50, 66 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.); Gumpert,

312 S.W.3d at 240–42 (holding costs related to copying deposition transcripts and

videotaping depositions are not recoverable); Matbon. Inc. v. Gries, 288 S.W.3d 471, 487

(Tex. App.—Eastland 2009, no pet.) (same); Shaikh, 127 S.W.3d at 82; see also Waste

Mgmt. of Tex., Inc. v. Tex. Disposal Sys. Landfill, Inc., No. 03-10-00826-CV, 2014 WL

6705741 at *5 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 14, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same). In response,

HEB, noting a split in Texas courts, cites cases supporting its position that the trial court

did not err in awarding these costs. See Crescendo Invs. Inc. v. Brice, 61 S.W.3d 465,

480–81 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, pet. denied) (holding that “[t]ranscripts

‘necessarily obtained for use in the suit’ seems to obviously include depositions . . . used

to question witnesses and prepare for argument at trial” and allowing those costs to be

          2 HEB argues that appellants inadequately briefed the issue of whether costs for video recordings

of depositions and “video trial support” can be recovered. While appellants’ brief does not elaborate on the
issue, it does provide legal authority to support their position regarding video recordings of depositions.
Accordingly, waiver being disfavored, we will address appellants’ issue related to video recordings of
depositions in this memorandum opinion. See Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585, 587 (Tex. 2008) (per
curiam) (“Appellate briefs are to be construed reasonably, yet liberally, so that the right to appellate review
is not lost by waiver. Simply stated, appellate courts should reach the merits of an appeal whenever
reasonably possible.” (internal citations omitted)). As to “video trial support,” the cases cited by appellants
do not pertain to the issue raised. Liberal construction in the interest of justice is not possible where there
is total lack of argument concerning a particular issue. Appellants did not provide additional explanation,
argument, or support, and as such, we find they have waived their issue concerning “video trial support” on
appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i).
                                                      4
recovered); see also Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Barrera, No. 04-08-00681-CV, 2010 WL

307878, at *5 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 27, 2010, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (same).

       The issue of whether the costs of videotaping depositions and copies of deposition

transcripts are taxable as court costs are issues of first impression in this Court. We find

appellants’ cited cases persuasive.

       The statute that applies here specifically limits recovery of costs to the “fees
       of the court reporter for the original of stenographic transcripts necessarily
       obtained for use in the suit” and “such other costs and fees as may be
       permitted by these rules and state statutes.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
       ANN. § 31.007(b)(2), (4) (emphasis added)[;] [s]ee TEX. R. CIV. P. 203.2(f)
       (stating clerk of court must tax charges for preparing original deposition
       transcript as costs). Civil procedure rule 140 specifically states that “[n]o fee
       for a copy of a paper not required by law or these rules to be copied shall
       be taxed in the bill of costs.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 140. We have not found any
       rule or statute that requires a party to videotape a deposition or to obtain a
       copy of a deposition, and [appellee] cites to none. And we do not find any
       language in an applicable statute or rule that allows a party to recover as
       costs the expenses of videotaping depositions or copying deposition
       transcripts, or any general language that allows recovery as costs for
       expenses that were “necessary to the conduct of trial” or “necessarily
       obtained for use in the suit and were used to question witnesses and
       prepare for argument at trial.”

Gumpert, 312 S.W.3d at 241–42 (footnotes omitted). Here, appellants argue that HEB

was awarded costs related to video recording depositions as well as for copies of

transcripts of depositions that were noticed and taken by appellants. We find no statute

or rule that authorizes the recovery of the costs to videotape a deposition or obtain a copy

of a deposition transcript, therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred by awarding

HEB those costs. See id.; Matbon, 288 S.W.3d at 487; Shaikh, 127 S.W.3d at 82; see

also Waste Mgmt. of Tex., 2014 WL 6705741 at *5; but see Crescendo Invs. Inc, 61

S.W.3d at 481; Weeks Marine, Inc., 2010 WL 307878, at *5. We sustain appellants’ issue

                                              5
as it relates to costs for video recordings of depositions and copies of deposition

transcripts.

C.       Recoverable Expenses

         Appellants next assert that the trial court erred in awarding HEB costs for the

“Shana Lively Transcripts” and for “e[-]filing fees” that were not shown to be fees of the

clerk.

         1.     Transcripts

         The “Shana Lively Transcripts” are the transcripts of pre-trial hearings reported by

Shana Lively, the court reporter for the 398th District Court. The civil practice and

remedies code expressly authorizes the trial court to include in the judgment “fees of the

court reporter for the original of stenographic transcripts necessarily obtained for use in

the suit.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 31.007(b)(2). Because these costs are

explicitly provided for by statute, the trial court did not err in awarding them. Appellants’

issue as it relates to the “Shana Lively Transcripts” is overruled.

         2.     Electronic Filing Fees

         Appellants further assert that the trial court erred in awarding electronic filing fees,

to HEB because “HEB presented no such proof” that these expenses were “shown to be

fees of the clerk.” The statute expressly permits an award for “fees of the clerk and service

fees due the county.” Id. § 31.007(b)(1). Electronic filing is an appropriate—and in some

courts, mandatory—method by which parties may file and serve pleadings and motions.

See TEX. R. CIV. P. 21(f). Use of the electronic system in Texas is free. Price Structure,

EFILETEXAS, https://www.efiletexas.gov/Service-Providers/StateEFSP.htm (last visited

                                                6
Jan. 17, 2023). However, there are fees assessed by and collected by the clerk when a

document is e-filed. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in awarding costs for the clerk’s

fees associated with e-filing. See Allen v. Crabtree, 936 S.W.2d 6, 8 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 1996, no writ); Shenandoah Assocs. v. J & K Props., Inc., 741 S.W.2d 470,

487 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, writ denied); see also Spears v. Huber, No. 07-11-0193-

CV, 2012 WL 933780, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 20, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Appellants’ issue is overruled as it relates to e-filing fees.

D.     Evidence to Support Bill of Costs

       In their final argument, appellants contend that HEB did not present evidence to

support the listed expenses. “Each party to a suit shall be responsible for accurately

recording all costs and fees incurred during the course of a lawsuit, if the judgment is to

provide for the adjudication of such costs.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 31.007(a).

There is no requirement in § 31.007(a) for a formal presentation of evidence of HEB’s

costs. See Nolte v. Flournoy, 348 S.W.3d 262, 271 (Tex. App—Texarkana 2011, pet.

denied); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 31.007(a). Instead, “[a]ll that seems

to be required is that the successful party present . . . an itemized list of costs and fees

incurred during the lawsuit.” Nolte, 348 S.W.3d at 271; see Johnson v. Ventling, 462

S.W.3d 92, 104–05 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2013), aff’d in part, rev’d in part,

466 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. 2015). Here, HEB presented an itemized list of costs and fees

incurred during the lawsuit. Therefore, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion

in awarding costs. Appellants’ issue as it relates to evidentiary support for the bill of costs

is overruled.

                                               7
E.     Summary

       The trial court did not have the benefit of our analysis at the time it denied the

motion to retax costs. Accordingly, we believe the best resolution is to give the trial court

the opportunity to recalculate the taxable costs consistent with our analysis. See

Gumpert, 312 S.W.3d at 242.

                                    III.   CONCLUSION

       We reverse the trial court’s order and remand this cause for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

                                                                NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                                Justice

Delivered and filed on the
16th day of February, 2023.

                                             8