State v. Kevin Buchanan, 572 S.W.3d 746

The State (Texas, City of Garland, and Dallas transit authority) sued Kevin Buchanan, the court-appointed receiver for Brooklyn’s Firewheel, LLC, to collect delinquent sales- and use-tax trust funds that Buchanan had collected but not remitted.
The State sought about $29,690 in combined state, municipal, and transit-authority taxes and pleaded for recovery of attorney’s fees under Tex. Gov’t Code § 2107.006.
At trial the jury found for the State on the tax liability (accepting the Comptroller’s certificate) but answered “0” to the question asking for a reasonable attorney’s fee for the State’s counsel.
The State moved to disregard the zero-fee finding or, alternatively, for a new trial, arguing fees are mandatory under § 2107.006 and the zero verdict lacked evidentiary support; the trial court nevertheless entered judgment awarding no fees and denied a new trial.
On appeal the State argued (1) an award of fees is mandatory under § 2107.006 and (2) the jury’s zero-fee finding is factually insufficient given attorney testimony about hours and rates.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fees under Tex. Gov’t Code § 2107.006 are mandatory	Section 2107.006’s “may recover” provision is mandatory once fees are pleaded and proved	Jury question wording (“if any”) allowed jury discretion not to award fees; State waived complaint by not objecting	Court held the statute mandates fees if proven; award was not discretionary
Whether State waived challenge to jury question wording	State preserved issue via motion to disregard/alternative new trial asserting statutory right	Buchanan argued lack of objection to question forfeited the complaint	Court held State did not waive because availability of fees is a legal question for the court and was preserved by postverdict motions
Factual sufficiency of jury’s zero-fee award	Attorney testified to hours, reasonable rates, and services rendered; evidence supports some award	Buchanan argued the hours were excessive and case simple, so zero (or small) fee reasonable	Court held zero award was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence and remanded fees for new trial

Holland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. 1999) (availability of fees under a statute is a legal question and jury’s fee verdict is immaterial to statutory entitlement)
Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (statutes stating a party “may recover” attorney’s fees are not discretionary)
Ventling v. Johnson, 466 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. 2015) (trial court cannot deny fees when evidence shows they are reasonable and necessary under a statute providing recovery)
In re Bent, 487 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2016) (interpreting “may obtain” language to render fee awards mandatory when statutory prerequisites are satisfied)
Midland W. Bldg., L.L.C. v. First Serv. Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. 2009) (zero-fee awards improper absent evidence affirmatively showing no services were needed or of no value)