Southwest Galvanizing, Inc. and Leach & Minick, P.C. v. Eagle Fabricators, Inc, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 11197

SWG sued Eagle; jury awarded SWG damages and attorney’s fees including $50,000 (trial) and $25,000 (if Eagle’s appeal to Court of Appeals was unsuccessful).
Trial court reduced the attorney’s fees award by remittitur; Eagle paid part of the judgment and obtained a partial release.
On the first appeal, this court reversed the trial court’s fee reduction and rendered judgment restoring the jury’s fee findings, including the $25,000 appellate-fee contingent on an unsuccessful appeal by Eagle.
After mandate, Eagle tendered and then deposited certain funds (difference in trial fees, costs, interest) into the trial court registry; SWG refused some payments and sought post-judgment discovery to collect the $25,000 appellate fee.
Eagle moved for a declaration that the judgment was satisfied; the trial court signed an order finding the judgment satisfied in all respects and denied SWG’s motion to compel. SWG appealed the satisfaction order; Leach & Minnick was listed as a co-appellant but had not been a party below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s satisfaction order is a final, appealable judgment	SWG: order is final because it disposed of rights to recover appellate fees and costs	Eagle: order is not a new final judgment; post-judgment order is ancillary	Court: order disposed of all issues between parties and was final and appealable
Whether Leach & Minnick is a proper appellant	SWG/Leach: assignment of appellate-fee interest makes firm a proper appellant	Eagle: firm was not a party below and has no basis to appeal	Court: dismiss Leach & Minnick’s appeal for lack of party status; retain SWG’s appeal
Whether the trial court abused discretion by declaring Eagle satisfied the judgment re: appellate fees	SWG: prior mandate awarded $25,000 for Eagle’s unsuccessful appeal; trial court must enforce mandate	Eagle: it never appealed; its cross-issues did not amount to an appeal	Court: no abuse — Eagle did not file a notice of appeal, was appellee, and raising cross-points does not equal an appeal
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying post-appeal costs to SWG	SWG: as successful party it must recover costs for post-judgment proceedings	Eagle: SWG was not prevailing in those post-appeal proceedings because court found judgment satisfied	Court: no abuse — trial court could find SWG not the successful party and deny costs

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (final-judgment test: disposes of all claims and parties)
Parks v. Huffington, 616 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1981) (post-judgment orders may be ancillary/not appealable unless they dispose of parties’ rights)
Arndt v. Farris, 633 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. 1982) (post-judgment discovery appealability when final judgment disposes of all issues)
Transceiver Corp. of Am. v. Ring Around Prods., 581 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1979) (post-judgment order denying discovery was appealable where sole issue was whether prior judgment was satisfied)
Madeksho v. Abraham, Watkins, Nichols & Friend, 112 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (trial court must enforce appellate mandate)
Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1986) (trial court should consult appellate opinion and mandate when enforcing mandate)
City of San Benito v. Rio Grande Valley Gas Co., 109 S.W.3d 750 (Tex. 2003) (virtual representation doctrine as limited exception to party requirement for appeal)
In re Union Carbide Corp., 273 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. 2008) (permissive joinder and party-adding principles)
Harris Cnty. Children’s Protective Servs. v. Olvera, 971 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998) (trial courts must follow appellate mandates)
Christus Health v. Dorriety, 345 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (definition of "successful party" for costs)