Anglo-Dutch Petroleum International, Inc., and Anglo-Dutch (Tenge), LLC v. Greenberg Peden, P.C., and Gerald J. Swonke
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11171
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Anglo-Dutch hired Greenberg Peden via a 2000 contingency-fee agreement; attorney Gerard Swonke later moved to McConn & Williams and Greenberg Peden assigned its rights under the fee agreement to Swonke. The underlying case settled for $51 million.
- A 2007 judgment (after a jury) treated the fee agreement as between Anglo-Dutch and Swonke, awarding Swonke $1,000,000 and fees/interest; Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding the agreement was with Greenberg Peden and remanded.
- On remand the trial court (after motions, a calculation order, summary-judgment rulings, and a jury trial limited to Anglo-Dutch’s requested declaratory-fee offset/attorneys’ fees) awarded Swonke (by assignment) $306,000 plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest, denied Anglo-Dutch’s UDJA fee award as inequitable, and entered other rulings disposing of claims.
- Anglo-Dutch appealed (challenging the award of $306,000/interest and denial of its UDJA fees); Swonke/Greenberg Peden cross-appealed (challenging calculation method, summary-judgment rulings, and preservation of earlier interest/cost awards).
- The court concluded the parties tried the fee-amount issue by consent, affirmed the $306,000 calculation and interest awards, rejected challenges to preservation of prior awards, and affirmed the trial court’s denial of Anglo-Dutch’s UDJA fee request as within the court’s broad discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Anglo-Dutch) | Defendant's Argument (Swonke/Greenberg Peden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether trial court could award $306,000 and interest when Anglo-Dutch only sought declaratory relief | The court lacked jurisdiction to award compensatory relief not pleaded; award is void | Swonke’s counterclaim sought damages and interest and parties tried amount by consent; the assignment supports payment to Swonke | Affirmed: parties tried the amount by consent; award to Swonke by assignment was proper |
| 2) Whether Swonke (nonprevailing on individual claims) could receive prejudgment and postjudgment interest | Interest improper because Swonke was nonprevailing on his individual claims; prejudgment interest limited to prevailing parties | KB Home standard inapplicable here; remand judgment materially benefited Swonke as assignee and interest compensates lost use | Affirmed: award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest was within trial court discretion |
| 3) Proper method to calculate fee under the contingency agreement (numerator/denominator and rounding) | Numerator limited to Swonke’s hours at Greenberg Peden; rounding applies to hours ratio before multiplying by 20% | Numerator should include all hours Swonke worked (Greenberg + McConn) and rounding should occur after multiplying by 20% | Affirmed trial court: numerator = hours Swonke worked at Greenberg Peden; round hours ratio first, then multiply by 20% => $306,000 |
| 4) Whether Anglo-Dutch was entitled to UDJA attorney’s fees (stipulated amounts) | Stipulation established reasonable and necessary fees totaling $415,000; trial court abused discretion by denying them | Trial court has broad discretion; given facts and conduct, fee award would not be equitable and just | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in denying Anglo-Dutch UDJA fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Anglo-Dutch Petroleum Int’l, Inc. v. Greenberg Peden, P.C., 352 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2011) (fee agreement construed as between Anglo-Dutch and Greenberg Peden)
- Brainard v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 216 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2006) (prejudgment interest compensates lost use of money due)
- Miga v. Jensen, 96 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. 2002) (framework for prejudgment/postjudgment interest and partial payments)
- Intercontinental Group P’ship v. KB Home Lone Star L.P., 295 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009) (prevailing-party meaningful-relief standard)
- Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (UDJA fee awards are discretionary: reasonable, necessary, equitable, and just)
- Ridge Oil Co., Inc. v. Guinn Invs., Inc., 148 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. 2004) (trial court may reduce jury attorney-fee awards; equity review)
- Miga v. Jensen, 299 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2009) (postjudgment interest and effect of supersedeas/security)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992) (meaningful relief and prevailing-party concept)