THE AMERICAN RULE GOVERNS RECOVERABILITY OF ATTORNEYS' FEES IN LITIGATION
Texas follows the American Rule, meaning
that attorney’s fees can only be awarded as part of the judgment if a contract
or statute provides for them
Whether a party may recover reasonable
attorney's fees is a question of law for the trial court which we review de
novo. Brent v. Field, 275 S.W.3d 611, 621 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2008, no pet.)
(citing Holland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 91, 94, 95 (Tex. 1999)).
It has long been the rule in Texas that attorney's fees paid to prosecute or defend a lawsuit cannot be recovered in that suit absent a statute or contract that allows for their recovery. See Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299, 310-11 (Tex. 2006) ("Absent a contract or statute, trial courts do not have inherent authority to require a losing party to pay the prevailing party's fees."); Wm. Cameron & Co. v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y., 55 S.W.2d 1032, 1035 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1932, judgm't adopted) ("It is settled law in this state that, unless provided for by statute or by contract between the parties, attorneys' fees incurred by a party to litigation are not recoverable against his adversary either in an action in tort or a suit upon a contract."); Sherrick v. Wyland, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 299, 37 S.W. 345, 345 (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) ("It has often been ruled, in this state and elsewhere, that fees of counsel, incurred in prosecuting a suit for or defending against a wrong, are not ordinarily recoverable as actual damages, because they are not considered proximate results of such wrong."). The rule is known as the American Rule. See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 602, 121 S. Ct. 1835, 149 L. Ed. 2d 855 (2001) ("[P]arties are ordinarily required to bear their own attorney's fees—the prevailing party is not entitled to collect from the loser.").
It has long been the rule in Texas that attorney's fees paid to prosecute or defend a lawsuit cannot be recovered in that suit absent a statute or contract that allows for their recovery. See Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299, 310-11 (Tex. 2006) ("Absent a contract or statute, trial courts do not have inherent authority to require a losing party to pay the prevailing party's fees."); Wm. Cameron & Co. v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y., 55 S.W.2d 1032, 1035 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1932, judgm't adopted) ("It is settled law in this state that, unless provided for by statute or by contract between the parties, attorneys' fees incurred by a party to litigation are not recoverable against his adversary either in an action in tort or a suit upon a contract."); Sherrick v. Wyland, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 299, 37 S.W. 345, 345 (Tex. Civ. App. 1896) ("It has often been ruled, in this state and elsewhere, that fees of counsel, incurred in prosecuting a suit for or defending against a wrong, are not ordinarily recoverable as actual damages, because they are not considered proximate results of such wrong."). The rule is known as the American Rule. See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 602, 121 S. Ct. 1835, 149 L. Ed. 2d 855 (2001) ("[P]arties are ordinarily required to bear their own attorney's fees—the prevailing party is not entitled to collect from the loser.").
SOURCE: WACO COURT OF APPEALS - 10-12-00241-CV – 8/8/2013 Pharia, LLC v Childers (Trial court erred in
awarding attorney's fees; court of appeals reverses portion of the judgment
that awarded the attorney's fees and renders a take-nothing judgment on that
claim, but otherwise affirms).
ATTORNEYS FEES NOT RECOVERABLE AS ACTUAL DAMAGES
ATTORNEYS FEES NOT RECOVERABLE AS ACTUAL DAMAGES
Texas has long
followed the "American Rule," which prohibits an award of attorney's
fees unless specifically provided by contract or statute. MBM Fin. Corp. v. The
Woodlands Operating Co., 292 S.W.3d 660, 6693d (Tex. 2009).
Here, there is no
contract between the parties, and Sherman does not seek attorney's fees under
any statutory provision. Rather, he contends that because Wein filed a
fraudulent lawsuit against him, causing him to expend money in attorney's fees
and expenses, he is entitled to recover those fees and expenses as actual
damages.
Attorney's fees,
however, are ordinarily not recoverable as actual damages in and of themselves.
See Tana Oil & Gas Corp. v. McCall, 104 S.W.3d 80, 81-82, 83 (Tex. 2003)
(attorney plaintiffs who sought to recover damages based solely on value of
time and costs incurred in defending claims had not suffered actual damages and
were not entitled to only damages they claimed; plaintiffs should have pursued
attorney's fees as sanctions under Rule 13 or Chapter 10); Worldwide Asset
Purchasing, L.L.C. v. Rent-a-Center East, Inc., 290 S.W.3d 554, 570 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.) (attorney's fees not recoverable as actual damages);
Haden v. David J. Sacks, P.C., 222 S.W.3d 580, 597 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st.
Dist.] 2007) (same), rev'd on other grounds, 266 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. 2008); Quest
Commc'ns Int'l, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 114 S.W.3d 15, 35-36 (Tex. App.-Austin
2003) (damages measured by plaintiff's attorney's fees recoverable only under
certain exceptions not implicated here), rev'd in part on other grounds, 167
S.W.324 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam).
Because Sherman
neither sought nor proved any damages other than attorney's fees, there is no
evidence to support the actual damage element of any of his asserted claims,
and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in Wein's
favor. We overrule Sherman's cross-issue.
SOURCE: AUSTIN COURT
OF APPEALS - 03-10-00499-CV – 8/23/2013
No comments:
Post a Comment