Robert Holmes v. Craig Cassel
01-16-00114-CV
Tex. App.Aug 8, 2017Background
- In 1995 tax-deficiency proceedings, Holmes was not named or served; a 1996 judgment and 2003 sale followed, and Cassel acquired possession after a tax sale.
- Metro later condemned part of the property, depositing proceeds in court; both Holmes and Cassel claimed entitlement to the proceeds.
- Holmes filed a cross-claim seeking declaration of a one-half ownership interest and one-half of the condemnation proceeds; Cassel asserted limitations, failure to exhaust statutory prerequisites, and later res judicata/collateral estoppel after a separate district-court action.
- In a separate district-court suit Holmes unsuccessfully challenged the tax judgment; that judgment was affirmed on appeal and certiorari was denied, after which Cassel relied on res judicata/collateral estoppel in the condemnation case.
- The trial court granted Cassel summary judgment on res judicata/collateral estoppel, awarded him the registry proceeds, and awarded attorney’s fees (offset by taxes Holmes had paid). Holmes’s motion for new trial was denied.
- On appeal Holmes challenged (1) the award of attorney’s fees and (2) the grant of summary judgment, arguing unresolved fact issues on waiver and estoppel; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Holmes) | Defendant's Argument (Cassel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorney’s fees could be awarded under the Declaratory Judgment Act | Holmes: Cassel did not assert affirmative relief via declaratory claim and therefore fees were improper | Cassel: Holmes invoked declaratory relief; the court may award fees to either party under the Act | Court: Fees permitted; trial court did not abuse discretion (Act authorizes equitable fees) |
| Whether Cassel properly segregated claimed attorney’s fees | Holmes: Fees were not segregated from other claims | Cassel: Fees were segregated to work on cross-claims between Cassel and Holmes (excluded condemnation and district-court work) | Court: Segregation adequate; fees recoverable for declaratory dispute defense |
| Whether a fee award required a merits adjudication of title or limitations | Holmes: No judgment on title/limitations, so fees inappropriate | Cassel: Declaratory statute does not require merits ruling as prerequisite to fees | Court: No merits ruling required; fees still allowable under statute |
| Whether summary judgment was erroneous because of unresolved waiver/estoppel fact issues | Holmes: Genuine fact issues remain (payment of taxes, waiver/estoppel) | Cassel: District-court judgment and appeals preclude relitigation (res judicata/collateral estoppel); Holmes failed to adequately brief issues | Court: Holmes’s waiver/estoppel complaint waived for inadequate briefing; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Feldman v. KPMG LLP, 438 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (Declaratory Judgment Act fee standard; fees must be reasonable, necessary, equitable, and just)
- Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. 1996) (trial court discretion to award or deny attorney’s fees under declaratory judgment statute)
- Knighton v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 856 S.W.2d 206 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993) (party invoking declaratory relief allows either side to seek fees)
- BHP Petroleum Co. v. Millard, 800 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. 1990) (Declaratory Judgment Act not available to settle disputes already pending in another form; limits on counterclaim usage)
- Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (requirement to segregate attorney’s fees between recoverable and nonrecoverable claims)