The following are summaries of selected civil opinions issued by the Third Court of Appeals during September 2025. The summaries are an overview; please review the entire opinion. Subsequent histories are current as of October 13, 2025.
ATTORNEY’S FEES: Court reverses appellate-fee award when not contingent on successful appeal.
YCUL, LLC v Peterson, No. 03-24-00429-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 16, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem op.).
In a dispute over the sale of real property, the jury found that the deed at issue failed to convey the property from Peterson to YCUL because of failure of consideration or fraud. The trial court signed a judgment on the verdict and awarded Peterson trial-court fees and appellate fees if appealed to the court of appeals and an additional fee award if briefs were filed in the supreme court. Peterson sought attorney’s fees under Business and Commerce Code Section 27.01(e) that allows fees against a person who commits fraud in a real estate transaction. The court of appeals affirmed the trial-court fee award. YCUL challenged the appellate attorney-fees award which failed to make the award contingent on Peterson’s success on appeal. The court held that the failure to condition the award of appellate fees on an unsuccessful appeal by YCUL was error. The court concluded the error was harmless as to the court of appeals fee award since YCUL was unsuccessful. The court, however, modified the appellate-fee award for the supreme court to be conditioned on the appeal being unsuccessful and affirmed the remainder of the judgment.
FAMILY LAW: Court reverses child-support amount for insufficient evidence.
Ly v. Nguyen, No. 03-23-00535-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 19, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
In this divorce appeal, husband challenges the trial court’s deviation from child-support guidelines. The trial court ordered husband to pay the maximum standard child support under the guidelines, or $1,840 per month. Family Code Chapter 154 uses the net resources of the obligor to determine the amount of child support. If the child support ordered by the trial court varies from the guidelines, the court must make specified findings without out regard to Rules 296-299 findings of fact and conclusions of law. With one child, the statutory percentage of husband’s monthly net resources to be allowed for child support was 20 percent. Thus, the award of $1,840 per month requires an implicit finding that husband had at least $9,200 in monthly net resources. Husband contended his monthly net resources after deductions was $1,619. Thus, applying the 20 percent guideline, his child-support obligation would be $323.98. The court of appeals held that the trial court’s implicit finding that husband had net monthly resources of at least $9,200 is contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence to be clearly wrong and unjust. The court concluded that on the existing record, it could not render judgment on the amount of support owed. Accordingly, it reversed and remanded for a new trial on the child-support issue and affirmed the remainder of the judgment.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT: Court holds that claim for attorney’s fees survives nonsuit.
Toscano v. Brown, No. 03-25-00142-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 19, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Toscano sought declaratory relief to prohibit Brown from blocking an easement on her property that allowed Toscano access to his landlocked property. In response to Brown’s motion for summary judgment, Toscano nonsuited without prejudice. The trial court granted summary judgment on the merits for Brown and awarded Brown attorney’s fees. The court of appeals rejected Toscano’s argument that the nonsuit deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. The court concluded that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the merits because the nonsuit terminated the case from the moment the notice of nonsuit is filed. The nonsuit, however, did not prevent the trial court from awarding attorney’s fees under the UDJA. A claim for attorney’s fees under the UDJA constitutes a claim for affirmative relief that survives a nonsuit. The court affirmed the attorney’s fees award but reversed and rendered judgment that Toscano’s claims are dismissed without prejudice.