U.S. Denro Steels, Inc. v. Lieck
342 S.W.3d 677
Tex. App.2011Background
- Denro and SAW hired Ed Lieck as local counsel for the Southern suit under a contingency-fee agreement: 10% of the first $50 million, then 5% of the remainder.
- The Southern suit was dismissed with prejudice; the court ordered each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs and awarded no recovery to Denro/SAW.
- Plaintiffs filed suit seeking the contingency fee; Lieck argued for a fee based on the injunction value or broader recoveries.
- The trial court initially ruled for Lieck on liability and later on the amount, culminating in a final judgment awarding Lieck nothing.
- The appellate court held the contingency-fee contract unambiguous and limited Lieck’s fee to a percentage of the recovered judgment actually awarded in the Southern suit, which was zero.
- The court reversed and rendered that Lieck takes nothing on his breach-of-contract claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the contingency-fee contract ambiguous regarding the fee trigger. | Lieck: fee based on recovered and awarded judgments. | Denro/SAW: fee is strictly tied to the Southern suit judgment awarded and recovered. | Not ambiguous; contract controls. |
| What judgment governs Lieck’s fee under the contract. | Lieck: fee should include the value of the judgment or injunction. | Denro/SAW: fee based only on the June 7, 2007 judgment awarding nothing. | Fee limited to the June 7, 2007 judgment, which awarded nothing. |
| Did the Van Fleet memorandum modify the contract terms? | Lieck: memorandum shows broader intent. | Denro/SAW: memorandum is unsigned and irrelevant to terms. | Memorandum does not alter contract terms. |
| Can Lieck recover based on the temporary injunction or other non-judgment recoveries? | Lieck: injunction value constitutes recoverable amount. | Injunctive relief is not a recovery or judgment. | Temporary injunction is not recoverable under the contract. |
| Are the JISCO arbitration and settlement relevant to Lieck’s claim? | Lieck: broader settlments affect recovery. | Arbitration and settlement are irrelevant to Cause No. 20694. | Irrelevant to Lieck’s breach-of-contract claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bankers Home Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Wyatt, 162 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. 1942) (unambiguous judgments must be construed as written)
- Speer v. Stover, 711 S.W.2d 730 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1986) (definition of a judgment in Texas courts)
- Lindley v. Flores, 672 S.W.2d 612 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1984) (judgment as final determination of the controversy)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (examination of contract terms and intent; avoid reading extraneous terms)