Ernest Mungia v. via Metropolitan Transit, 441 S.W.3d 542

Mungia, a VIA bus operator, sued a third party in 2006 and amended in 2007 to add VIA for claims related to a 2004 collision; VIA was never properly served.
A default judgment against VIA for $67,200 was entered on July 7, 2008; VIA first learned of the judgment in September 2012 when sheriffs attempted execution.
VIA filed a bill of review (direct attack) and a declaratory-judgment action (collateral attack) seeking to set aside or declare void the default judgment and sought attorney’s fees under the UDJA.
The trial court granted VIA’s summary-judgment motion as to both claims and awarded VIA $31,409 in attorney’s fees and costs under the UDJA.
On appeal, Mungia challenged only the attorney’s-fee award, arguing the declaratory claim was tacked on solely to obtain fees; VIA defended the declaratory claim as an independent collateral attack and as a quicker route to relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether attorney’s fees under the UDJA were recoverable when VIA asserted a declaratory-judgment claim alongside a bill of review that raised the same issue (lack of service)	Mungia: Declaratory claim was tacked on solely to obtain otherwise impermissible attorney’s fees; fees therefore improper	VIA: Declaratory claim was an independent collateral attack and not asserted solely to obtain fees; it provided a quicker/independent remedy	Court: Declaratory claim merely duplicated the bill-of-review issue; UDJA fees therefore not recoverable and fee award reversed
Whether the summary-judgment disposition was final and properly granted beyond relief requested	Mungia: (implicit) challenge limited to fees on appeal	VIA: sought fees in motion and the judgment purported to dispose of all claims	Court: The summary judgment granted more relief than appropriate (substituted a new final judgment); fee issue is reviewable and reversed, and remaining claims remanded for further proceedings

MBM Fin. Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., L.P., 292 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2009) (UDJA cannot be used as a vehicle to obtain otherwise impermissible attorney’s fees)
Etan Indus. v. Lehmann, 359 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. 2011) (declaratory-judgment claim must do more than duplicate issues to justify UDJA fees)
PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012) (distinction between direct and collateral attacks on void judgments; lack of service renders judgment void)
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (requirements for a final judgment and when an erroneous grant of more relief can nevertheless be final and appealable)
Kiefer v. Touris, 197 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2006) (rules on finality in bill-of-review proceedings)
Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (standard of review for attorney’s-fee awards: abuse of discretion)