TLC CEC Parkdale, LLC and Complete Emergency Care Holding, LLC D/B/A TLC Complete Care v. Guadalupe Recio Trevino Jr., 13-20-00382-CV

On Aug. 29, 2018 Trevino was treated in TLC’s ER; he signed a contract to pay charges and assigned PIP benefits (up to $5,000). TLC’s total charges were $14,680.
TLC filed a hospital lien (Tex. Prop. Code ch. 55) on Sept. 7, 2018 claiming the full charges; Trevino later settled his tort claim with the responsible insurer on June 3, 2019 but the insurer would not pay without TLC on the check.
Trevino repeatedly asked TLC to release the lien; TLC refused but subsequently recorded a release after selling the account on Sept. 23, 2019 (Trevino says he received no notice).
Trevino sued TLC on Mar. 6, 2020 alleging fraud, conversion, theft/TTLA, and related torts, claiming the lien was fraudulent and that PIP had paid for his care.
TLC sent pre-answer correspondence challenging Trevino’s legal theories; TLC answered and filed jurisdictional challenges and special exceptions Apr. 27, 2020; Trevino nonsuited without prejudice the same day.
TLC moved for attorney’s fees under the Texas Theft Liability Act (TTLA) and for sanctions under Tex. R. Civ. P. 13 / Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 9; the trial court denied fees and sanctions and TLC appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant is a "prevailing party" under the TTLA and thus entitled to mandatory attorney’s fees after plaintiff nonsuited without prejudice	Trevino: nonsuit without prejudice does not make TLC a prevailing party	TLC: nonsuit was taken to avoid an unfavorable ruling, so TLC is the prevailing party under Epps	Court: No trial-court finding that nonsuit was to avoid an adverse ruling; TLC not a prevailing party; trial-court denial affirmed; TLC waived challenge to lack of findings by failing to file Rule 297 notice
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying sanctions under Tex. R. Civ. P. 13 and ch. 9 (groundless/bad-faith pleadings)	Trevino: claims had arguable bases (dispute over notice of lien release and whether PIP satisfied lien); COVID-related staffing issues affected communication	TLC: Trevino’s suit was groundless and brought in bad faith or to harass; alleged misstatements about lien status and failure to credit PIP	Court: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions; record supports reasonable basis for litigation and no bad-faith finding

Epps v. Fowler, 351 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. 2011) (defendant may be a prevailing party when plaintiff nonsuits to avoid an unfavorable ruling)
Moore v. Amarillo-Panhandle Humane Soc’y, Inc., 541 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2018) (pet. denied) (availability of TTLA fees is a question of law)
Arrow Marble, LLC v. Estate of Killion, 441 S.W.3d 702 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (no pet.) (TTLA fee awards are mandatory to prevailing parties)
Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (statutory fee language such as "shall be awarded" is mandatory)
Ad Villarai, LLC v. Chan Il Pak, 519 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. 2017) (per curiam) (failure to file Rule 297 notice waives complaint about missing findings)
Altesse Healthcare Sols., Inc. v. Wilson, 540 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2018) (per curiam) (standard of review for sanctions is abuse of discretion)
GTE Communications Sys. Corp. v. Tanner, 856 S.W.2d 725 (Tex. 1993) (party seeking sanctions bears the burden of proof and signature certifies basis for filing)
Bowie Mem’l Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam) (abuse-of-discretion standard and guidance on appellate review of trial-court discretion)