Geary H. Lee v. Elizabeth Deanne Holoubek, F/K/A Elizabeth Deanne Lee
06-15-00041-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 17, 2015Background
- Post-divorce dispute over enforcement and distribution of appellant Geary H. Lee’s paid-out retirement benefits; appellee Elizabeth Deanne Holoubek claimed a 35% interest previously determined interlocutorily.
- Holoubek pursued a post-decree proceeding to obtain a written, enforceable award and sought attorney’s fees and an upward adjustment for investment growth on her share.
- Trial court found Holoubek entitled to attorney’s fees, awarded a dollar amount based on evidence including a contingent-fee agreement, and calculated growth using market-return evidence and summaries; it also imposed a constructive trust tracing funds to an Edward Jones account.
- Lee objected on grounds including inadmissibility of market-rate evidence, res judicata, and that a contingency-based fee award was improper; some objections were not timely or were waived at trial.
- Appellee’s brief argues the trial court had statutory authority (Tex. Fam. Code §9.205 and §9.011) and sufficient factual evidence to support attorney’s fees, the investment-growth award, and the constructive trust.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Holoubek) | Defendant's Argument (Lee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of contingent-fee–based attorney’s fee award | Contingent-fee agreement admissible and trial evidence supported a dollar award tied to that agreement and Arthur Andersen factors | Contends contingent-fee basis is improper and raises res judicata | Trial court did not err; Lee waived objections and contingent-fee evidence was properly considered and supplemented by testimony so award upheld |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence for reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees | Counsel testified regarding necessity and reasonableness; fee agreement considered among Arthur Andersen factors | Argues insufficient proof of fee reasonableness | Evidence legally and factually sufficient; absence of cross-examination/rebuttal weighed for appellee; appellate standard favors trial factfinder |
| 3. Use/admission of market-rate evidence to compute growth on award | Market-return compilation admissible under business/market compilation exception; summaries under Rule 1006 supported calculation | Objected as hearsay to source (Exhibit 6) | Objection waived or harmless; trial court acted within discretion admitting market data and summary, so growth calculation sustained |
| 4. Imposition of constructive trust | Holoubek alleged breach of informal/fiduciary trust, unjust enrichment, and traced funds to Edward Jones account; Family Code §9.011 supports remedy | Denies basis for constructive trust; disputes tracing and fiduciary breach | Trial court had sufficient evidence of breach/unjust enrichment and identifiable res; constructive trust and statutory authority sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997) (contingent-fee agreements are admissible and relevant to reasonableness but not alone dispositive)
- Gray v. Sangrey, 428 S.W.3d 311 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2014) (elements and equitable purpose of constructive trust; tracing and unjust enrichment requirements)
- Texas Bank & Trust Co. v. Moore, 595 S.W.2d 502 (Tex. 1980) (informal fiduciary relationships and trust principles based on confidence and reliance)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)