Epps v. Fowler
351 S.W.3d 862
| Tex. | 2011Background
- 2004: Bruce and Stephanie Fowler purchased a Georgetown, TX home from Laura and Christopher Epps.
- 2006: Fowlers sue for DTPA, fraud, and misrepresentation; Eppses seek Chapter 10 sanctions and contract-based attorney's fees.
- Discovery issues: Fowlers allegedly omitting responses, delaying deposits; Eppses move for partial summary judgment.
- Fowlers nonsuit without prejudice the day after new counsel is retained; trial proceeds on contract-fee issue; sanctions reserved.
- Trial court awards Eppses fees under the contract; Fowlers appeal; court of appeals reverses as to fees, ruling nonsuit without prejudice gives no prevailing party.
- Texas Supreme Court grants review to decide if a defendant may be a prevailing party when plaintiff nonsuits without prejudice and whether remand for Chapter 10 is appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a nonsuit without prejudice make the defendant a prevailing party? | Epps contend not necessarily; outcome depends on merits and record. | Fowlers argue any nonsuit yields no prevailing party status unless prejudice or merits motive shown. | A defendant is not prevailing unless the nonsuit was to avoid an unfavorable merits judgment. |
| Does a nonsuit with prejudice confer prevailing party status? | Nonsuit with prejudice should bar relitigation and benefit defendant. | Nonsuit with prejudice constitutes a material change in legal relationship favoring defendant. | Yes, a nonsuit with prejudice constitutes prevailing party status. |
| Should the case be remanded to consider Chapter 10 sanctions? | Remand appropriate to adjudicate sanctions if contract-based fees unavailable. | Remand unnecessary if appellate relief on contract is dispositive. | Remand to consider Chapter 10 sanctions if fees under contract are not available. |
Key Cases Cited
- Intercont'l Group P'ship v. KB Home Lone Star L.P., 295 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009) (plaintiff with favorable findings but no damages not a prevailing party)
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (prevailing party requires material alteration by judgment or decree)
- Dean v. Riser, 240 F.3d 505 (5th Cir. 2001) (precludes prevailing party status absent avoidance of unfavorable judgment)
- Riser, 240 F.3d 505 (5th Cir. 2001) (recognizes two scenarios where a defendant may prevail after nonsuit)
- Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892 S.W.2d 853 (Tex. 1995) (nonsuit impact on prejudice and preclusion of claims)