Garza v. Slaughter
331 S.W.3d 43
Tex. App.2011Background
- Slaughter inherited real estate in 2001 and filed suit to quiet title, claiming appellants’ deeds were void.
- Appellants were served by publication; the court appointed Mahoney as attorney ad litem, with an order that the plaintiff pay the ad litem’s fees as costs.
- Mahoney demanded $5,000 upfront; Slaughter filed indigency affidavit; appellants moved for costs via registry, a lien, or dismissal of Mahoney.
- Bench trial resulted in a final judgment voiding the deeds and a finding that $7,500 was reasonable and necessary for ad litem services; no party was ordered to pay costs.
- An amended final judgment again stated $7,500 as costs but did not specify who pays; Slaughter had deposited funds into the registry; this prompted the appeal by Garza and Martinez.
- Slaughter filed cross-issues asserting indigency/appeal-related concerns, which the court treated as not timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of ad litem fees | Garza/Martínez contend $7,500 isn’t supported | Slaughter asserts higher reasonable fees; trial court has discretion | $7,500 is reasonable and necessary; first issue overruled |
| Who pays the ad litem fees | Slaughter should be assessed for ad litem fees | No good cause stated for taxing costs against Slaughter; but record shows Slaughter as payer | Trial court abused its discretion by not ordering Slaughter to pay; Slaughter must pay $7,500 as costs |
| Appellate ad litem fees | Mahoney seeks appellate ad litem fees | Mahoney lacks support to represent appellants’ interests on appeal | Denied; no appellate ad litem fees awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing legal-sufficiency of evidence; favorable evidence favored)
- Smith v. Patrick W.Y. Tam Trust, 296 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. 2009) (attorney’s fees conclusive when evidence is clear and uncontradicted)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse-of-discretion standard for fee awards)
- Rhodes v. Cahill, 802 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1990) (ad litem fees and shifting costs; policy rationale for payment source)
- Cahill v. Lyda, 826 S.W.2d 932 (Tex. 1992) (remand to determine appellate ad litem fees; costs taxed from proceeds)
- Rhodes v. Cahill (Rhodes dicta), 802 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1990) (dictum on good cause under Rule 141 for ad litem)
- Alford v. Whaley, 794 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990) (factors informing trial court’s fee-award discretion)