City of Laredo v. Montano
414 S.W.3d 731
| Tex. | 2013Background
- eminent-domain case in Laredo; jury found condemnation not for authorized public use and awarded fees under Texas Property Code § 21.019(c); City appealed the fee award; court of appeals partially reformed and affirmed; Texas Supreme Court reverses in part and remands for further proceedings; Montano family property sought for street widening and pedestrian plaza near International Bridge No. 1; Montanos claimed lack of public purpose benefited El Portal Center; trial court awarded attorney’s fees through trial, appellate fees, and expenses; Gonzalez and Benavides-Maddox represented Montanos; lack of time records by Gonzalez; Benavides-Maddox kept contemporaneous records and testified to trial work; El Apple I guidance discussed regarding lodestar and documentation; Court holds Gonzalez’s hours unsupported and remands for recalculation while upholding others
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gonzalez’s fee is recoverable with adequate proof | Montanos; Gonzalez’s hours reasonable and customary | City; Gonzalez lacked time records and documentation | Gonzalez’s $339,000 not supported; remand for recalculation |
| Whether Benavides-Maddox’s billing supports her fee | Benavides-Maddox’s contemporaneous work supports billing | City; evidence incomplete for trial-related hours | Benavides-Maddox’s trial-related work evidence adequate; affirm portion attributed to her hours |
| Application of El Apple I to fee determination under §21.019(c) | El Apple permits proving time through records; lodestar appropriate | Lodestar not mandatory, but substantiation required | El Apple guidance applies; Gonzalez’s proof deficient; not a lodestar denial but insufficient substantiation for adversary-payment context |
| Whether court should remand for recalculation of overall fee award | Maintain award except Gonzalez portion | Recalculate all fees if necessary | Remand to trial court to adjust Gonzalez portion; other awards affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2012) (lodestar method guidance; need for time records and task specificity)
- Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997) (fundamentals of reasonableness in fee recovery)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar principles; reasonableness and documentation requirements)
- FKM P’ship Ltd. v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Houston Sys., 255 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2008) (fee-shifting context; consideration of reasonableness factors)