The following are summaries of selected civil opinions issued by the Third Court of Appeals during February 2025. The summaries are an overview; please review the entire opinion. Subsequent histories are current as of March 7, 2025.
ATTORNEY’S FEES: Court reduces fee awarded in contingent-fee lawsuit.
CCR Roofing, LLC v. Garner, No. 03-23-00506-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 5, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Sales representatives sued employer for unpaid commissions and attorney’s fees. The jury awarded representatives their requested damages of $150,000 and $60,000 in attorney’s fees. Employer contended the evidence was legally insufficient to support the attorney-fee award. Representatives’ attorney had a 40 percent contingency-fee agreement and testified to an hourly rate and number of hours worked under the lodestar method for a $43,000 fee. Attorney requested a $60,000 fee based on the jury awarding $150,000 in damages. The court of appeals concluded that whether a fee is fixed or contingent is subsumed in the Arthur Anderson factors and thus cannot support an enhancement under the lodestar calculation. Any enhancement requires specific evidence that a higher amount is necessary for a reasonable fee award. The court modified the fee award to $43,000 and affirmed.
FAMILY LAW: Court upholds international-travel restriction.
Allepalli v. Allepalli, No. 03-23-00536-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 12, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Mother challenged the divorce decree’s international-travel restriction. The court of appeals observed that Family Code Chapter 153 requires the trial court to consider the risk of international abduction when there is evidence that a parent has taken a child out of the country in violation of the other parent’s right of possession and where the parent can work outside the U.S. With evidence of the risk of abduction, the trial court then considers whether the parent has strong ties to another country, particularly one not a signatory to the Hague Convention. Mother had taken child to India, a non-signatory to the Hague Convention, denying father access for more than two years; threatened not to renew child’s passport; and could work in India. The court held that the evidence supported the travel restriction and affirmed.
FAMILY LAW: Court reverses where petitioner failed to prove grounds for divorce.
Janish v. Janish, No. 03-23-00275-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 14, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Wife failed to answer or appear for trial. The trial court divided custody of the two children, split the assets unequally, and ordered no child support. Wife timely filed a restricted appeal. The court of appeals noted that in a no-answer divorce, petitioner’s allegations are not taken as true; petitioner must produce evidence to support the divorce. As for insupportability, husband answered “no” when asked if he agreed the marriage was insupportable. The only evidence of adultery was husband’s “yes” answer when asked whether he pleaded adultery. The court concluded husband failed to present evidence of either ground for divorce. Accordingly, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the divorce and that the error was apparent on the face of the record. The court reversed and remanded.
TRIAL PROCEDURE: Court reinstates DTPA claim challenging undisclosed hospital charge.
Mock v. St. David’s Healthcare P’ship, LP, LLP, No. 03-22-00708-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 21, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
After treatment in the emergency department, hospital gave Mock a contract with a financial agreement to sign. Mock later received a bill with a charge for Evaluation and Management Services. Mock contended the EMS charge was not disclosed before treatment and had it been, she would have gone elsewhere. Mock sued hospital for breach of contract, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations, and declaratory relief. The trial court granted summary judgment for hospital. The court of appeals affirmed the breach-of-contract claim but reversed the other claims. In her DTPA claim, Mock alleged hospital’s failure to disclose the EMS charge was false, deceptive, and misleading. The court rejected hospital’s argument that if it complied with the contract, Mock could not prove her DTPA claim. The court concluded hospital failed to show the absence of material facts on Mock’s other claims. The court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded.