Xiangxiang Tang v. Klaus Wiegand, 01-15-00163-CV

Background

This is an appeal by plaintiff Xiangxiang (Andy) Tang from a final judgment after a jury trial in a partnership dispute that included counterclaims by Klaus Wiegand and Yvonne Tran under the Texas Theft Liability Act (TTLA) and related tort and contract claims.
Wiegand repeatedly pleaded TTLA claims against Tang (original through third amended answers) but presented no evidence at trial and did not nonsuit or submit jury questions on his TTLA claims; Tran did submit TTLA questions and lost.
The jury awarded Tang reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees through trial in the amount of $55,165.88 (after counsel testified to segregation/reduction) and found Tang prevailed on the TTLA issues submitted (Tran’s TTLA questions returned “No”).
Tang moved for a judgment that Wiegand recover nothing on his TTLA claims and sought mandatory TTLA fees against Wiegand under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §134.005(2)(b); the trial court refused to enter that judgment and denied awarding fees against Wiegand.
Appellant argues (1) the court erred by not rendering judgment that Wiegand recover nothing on his TTLA claims, (2) TTLA mandates fees to the prevailing party so Tang should have been awarded $55,165.88 against Wiegand (jointly and severally with Tran), and (3) in the alternative a new trial should be granted on quantum of segregated fees if segregation was insufficient.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Tang)	Defendant's Argument (Wiegand)	Held / Appellate Issue Pressed
Whether the trial court should have entered judgment that Wiegand recover nothing on his TTLA counterclaims	Wiegand never presented evidence, did not nonsuit or submit jury questions, so Tang prevailed as a matter of law and judgment should say he recovers nothing	Wiegand effectively participated in trial; factual disputes exist and court discretion applies	Appellant contends error; standard is entitlement to judgment when claim was tried and unsupported — appellate review of law de novo
Whether Tang is entitled to mandatory attorney’s fees under TTLA against Wiegand	TTLA §134.005(b) mandates fees to a prevailing party; Tang prevailed on Wiegand’s TTLA claim and jury awarded fees; fees should be awarded jointly and severally against Tran and Wiegand	Court hesitated because Tang was not fully successful on all claims against Wiegand (e.g., conspiracy damages $0); argued fees must be apportioned or segregated	Appellant argues TTLA fees are mandatory to prevailing party even if unsuccessful on other claims; sequencing and segregation principles control fee recovery
Whether the jury’s attorney‑fee award ($55,165.88) was sufficiently segregated and admissible to support awarding fees against Wiegand	Tang’s counsel testified fees were segregated (25% removed for unrecoverable tort work) and the jury matched the segregated figure; this supports awarding that amount	Wiegand could argue fees were not adequately segregated between recoverable and unrecoverable claims or between multiple defendants	Appellant presses that jury finding and testimony suffice; if segregation inadequate, remedy is remand for determination of fee quantum
Whether a new trial should be granted solely on fee quantum	Tang seeks new trial only if appellate court finds segregation/quantum unclear — otherwise judgment should be rendered for the found amount	Wiegand would oppose new trial or contend no entitlement to fees at all	Appellant requests alternative relief: remand/new trial on fees if necessary; standard for new trial tied to great weight/preponderance or insufficiency of segregation evidence

Key Cases Cited

Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (statutes stating party “shall be awarded” attorney’s fees are mandatory)
Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (segregation rule for recoverable attorney’s fees and limited exception for discrete services that advance both recoverable and unrecoverable claims)
Varner v. Cardenas, 218 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. 2007) (reiterating Tony Gullo segregation principles)
Air Routing Int’l Corp. v. Britannia Airways, Ltd., 150 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (TTLA fee award to prevailing defendant is mandatory without prerequisite finding of frivolousness)
7979 Airport Garage, L.L.C. v. Dollar Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 245 S.W.3d 488 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (if component tasks relate solely to unrecoverable claims, claimant must segregate fees)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (standard on factual sufficiency/great weight review)