Edom Corner, LLC and Earl Berry, Jr. v. It's the Berry's, LLC, 12-14-00365-CV

Parties: Edom Corner, LLC and Earl A. Berry, Jr. (appellants) v. It’s the Berry’s, LLC d/b/a Mary Ellen’s (appellee).
Dispute arose from a lease/forcible detainer dispute; multiple related suits and appeals comprise the broader litigation history.
In earlier district-court proceedings and on appeal (Seventh Court), appellee’s counterclaims for declaratory relief and its request for attorney’s fees were denied; the forcible-detainer matter was severed and handled separately.
Appellee later obtained a ruling in a later proceeding (trial court) that it was the prevailing party, that res judicata/collateral estoppel did not bar its suit, that Berry was individually liable, and that appellee was entitled to attorney’s fees on summary judgment.
Appellants contend the lease expired by lapse (not by an adverse merits ruling), that prior adjudications preclude appellee’s fee claims, that statutory and common-law principles bar individual liability for Berry, and that appellee never proved actual damages to support fee recovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (It’s the Berry’s)	Defendant's Argument (Edom/Berry)	Held (trial court)
Whether appellee was the prevailing party	It’s the Berry’s says it prevailed because appellants failed to evict it	Appellants say no merits vindication occurred; lease simply expired and the eviction objective was mooted	Trial court found appellee was the prevailing party
Whether res judicata / collateral estoppel bar appellee’s fee claim	Appellee contends prior proceedings lacked jurisdiction over its fee claim so res judicata doesn't apply	Appellants say prior district judgment and appellate ruling denied fees and thus bar relitigation	Trial court held res judicata/collateral estoppel did not bar appellee’s suit
Whether Berry is individually liable	Appellee treats Berry as a liable party under the lease	Appellants invoke Texas Business Orgs. Code protections and lack of conduct showing individual liability; also argue compulsory-counterclaim/res judicata grounds	Trial court found Berry individually liable
Whether appellee was entitled to attorney’s fees on summary judgment	Appellee asserts its fees are reasonable and recoverable	Appellants submitted affidavit (Bennett) challenging reasonableness, necessity, duplicative billing, and argue no actual damages were recovered so fees are improper	Trial court awarded attorney’s fees to appellee on summary judgment

Goldman v. Olmstead, 414 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. App. Dallas 2013) (prevailing-party and fee-analysis authority)
Robbins v. Capozzi, 100 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. App. Tyler 2002) (defining prevailing party as success on the merits)
Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania v. Oraco, 170 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2005) (prevailing-party and judgment-vindication discussion)
Igal v. Brightstar Information Technology Group, Inc., 250 S.W.3d 78 (Tex. 2008) (res judicata/claim preclusion principles)
It’s the Berry’s, LLC v. Edom Corner, LLC, 271 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2008) (prior appellate disposition addressing fee claims and severance)
MBM Financial Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., 292 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2009) (attorney’s-fees recovery requires actual damages in certain contexts)
In re Nalle Plastics Family Ltd. P’ship, 406 S.W.3d 168 (Tex. 2013) (clarifying when attorney’s fees can be considered compensatory damages)
Laredo Independent Sch. Dist. v. Trevino, 25 S.W.3d 263 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2000) (evidence on usual and customary attorney’s fees)