Inwood National Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee and U.S. Trust Bank, Bank of America Private Wealth Management, 463 S.W.3d 228

Inwood National Bank (Inwood) took a security interest in assets held in an investment account at U.S. Trust in 2000 and filed a financing statement to perfect that interest.
Wells Fargo obtained a judgment against Paschall in 2011 and served a post-judgment writ of garnishment on U.S. Trust for the investment account funds.
Inwood and Paschall repeatedly renewed/extended the underlying loan by a series of promissory notes (including a 2012 Note) that expressly stated they were renewals and not novations; Inwood did not advance new cash tied to the account after 2009.
Inwood intervened and moved to dissolve the garnishment, claiming its perfected security interest had priority over Wells Fargo’s judgment lien; the trial court denied the motion and awarded the account to Wells Fargo and attorney’s fees to U.S. Trust (trial-court fees only).
On appeal the central question was whether the 2012 Note constituted an “advance” under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 9.323(b) (which would subordinate Inwood’s security interest to Wells Fargo’s lien) and whether U.S. Trust was entitled to contingent appellate attorney’s fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2012 renewal note was an "advance" under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 9.323(b) so as to subordinate Inwood's security interest to Wells Fargo's judgment lien	Wells Fargo: the 2012 Note was an extension/new note that constituted an advance (or enlargement of credit) made after it became lien creditor, triggering § 9.323(b)	Inwood: the 2012 Note was purely a renewal/extension (not a novation) that did not provide new funds or enlarge the secured obligation and therefore is not an "advance"	Court: 2012 Note was not an "advance." Inwood's perfected security interest retained priority; grant motion to dissolve garnishment as to the account.
Whether U.S. Trust is entitled to contingent attorney’s fees for appellate work as part of its costs under Tex. R. Civ. P. 677	U.S. Trust: should recover contingent appellate fees because it defended against garnishment and may need to participate on appeal	Wells Fargo: fees awarded should be limited to reasonable fees incurred in trial-court proceedings; contingent appellate fees not shown or necessary	Court: trial court did not abuse discretion in denying contingent appellate fees; award of trial-court attorney's fees to U.S. Trust stands but must be paid by Wells Fargo after dissolution of garnishment.

City of Houston v. Bates, 406 S.W.3d 539 (Tex. 2013) (statutory interpretation and de novo review principles)
UNI Imports, Inc. v. Aparacor, Inc., 978 F.2d 984 (7th Cir. 1992) (discusses when a modification produces a new commitment/loan for priority analysis)
Schwab v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp., 198 S.W.2d 79 (Tex. 1946) (renewal note does not extinguish original obligation absent intent to novate)
Boers v. Payline Sys., Inc., 928 P.2d 1010 (Or. Ct. App. 1996) (interprets “advance” broadly to include nonmonetary value)
Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C. v. Sw. Sec., Inc., 372 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (rule 677 and attorney's fees as part of garnishment costs)