McGibney v. Rauhauser, 549 S.W.3d 816

Background

McGibney and ViaView sued Neal Rauhauser for defamation and related claims; Rauhauser filed a TCPA (Chapter 27) motion to dismiss. After this court reversed the trial court's failure-to-rule and remanded, the trial court dismissed the claims and addressed fees and sanctions.
On remand the trial court (initially without a hearing) awarded roughly $300,384 in attorney's fees and $1,000,000 in sanctions; after a hearing it set aside the $1,000,000 award and instead awarded $300,383.84 in fees, $150,000 in monetary sanctions, $75,000 in conditional appellate fees, and several non‑monetary sanctions (domain transfers and year‑long website apologies).
Appellants challenged (among other things) the amount and reasonableness of the attorney's fees award, the propriety of non‑monetary sanctions, the size of monetary sanctions, the conditioning of appellate fees, and certain findings in the judgment (e.g., "willful" and "malicious").
The appellate court reviewed the fee and sanction rulings for abuse of discretion, examined the billing records and 18.001 affidavit issues, and considered statutory text in deciding whether non‑monetary sanctions are authorized by section 27.009.
Result: the court affirmed that some reasonable attorney's fees and sanctions are recoverable under the TCPA but reversed/vacated portions of the judgment: it held the full fee award was unsupported/unreasonable, non‑monetary sanctions exceed section 27.009 authority, the $150,000 sanction was excessive, the trial court improperly made "willfulness and maliciousness" findings beyond section 27.007, and the appellate‑fee award was improperly conditioned. The case was remanded for further proceedings on fees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (McGibney/ViaView)	Defendant's Argument (Rauhauser)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding the full $300,383.84 in attorney's fees	Fees were excessive, included work not incurred defending this suit, and billing entries were redacted/unsupported	Fees were proved by an 18.001 affidavit and thus should be awarded	Court held fee award unreasonable as to amount; remanded for hearing to determine reasonable fees (18.001 affidavit not conclusive)
Whether conditional appellate attorney's fees were permissible as ordered	Conditioning on anything less than successful appeal improper; the conditioning here made recovery impossible given prior appellate history	Trial court's condition stands; no proper alternative offered	Court held trial court improperly conditioned appellate fees (must be conditioned on a successful appeal)
Whether trial court could impose non‑monetary sanctions (domain transfers, mandatory apologies) under §27.009	Non‑monetary sanctions were unauthorized by TCPA; exceed statutory "award" language	Sanctions were appropriate deterrence remedies available to the court	Court held §27.009 authorizes monetary awards only; trial court abused discretion by imposing non‑monetary sanctions; vacated those provisions
Whether $150,000 monetary sanction was excessive / punitive and whether findings of willfulness and maliciousness were permissible	Sanctions punish rather than merely deter; Appellants' limited net worth and rapid nonsuit make large sanction excessive; findings of willfulness/malice go beyond permitted findings	Sanctioning and findings justified by conduct; punitive‑damage guideposts apply	Court held $150,000 sanction excessive for TCPA deterrence purpose and vacated it; also held "willfulness" and "maliciousness" findings exceed the specific findings authorized under §27.007 and reversed those findings

Key Cases Cited

Sullivan v. Abraham, 488 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. 2016) (defines "reasonable" attorney's fees under TCPA and limits "justice and equity" language meaning)
Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2012) (trial court abuses discretion when ruling lacks supporting evidence)
Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (appellate review of discretionary rulings requires that trial court act within guiding rules and principles)
In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (interlocutory appeal under TCPA and operation‑of‑law denial/remedy framework)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (trial court has no discretion to misapply the law)
BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (framework for reviewing excessiveness of punitive damages cited but held inapplicable to TCPA deterrence sanctions)
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) (abuse of discretion standard and review principles)