*1 nothing received question, Diversified purchaser an for sified not innocent id; See see more a chance at title. notice. than value without 75, Ortiz, Tex. v. also Woodward judgment record contains summary The (1951). purchaser As the S.W.2d following the documents: the Condras deed, cannot en- quitclaim a Diversified of deed, conveying the divorce original decree a fide bona joy protections the afforded Condra, the property to Jessie deed grantee quit- a purchaser, because Halls, Bell to the from Jessie Condra purchaser claim is not an innocent deed Louis judgment against of Con- abstract Woodward, 237 without notice. See dra, and deеd to Diversi- the constable’s (stating purchaser quit- S.W.2d at 291 presented fied. The Halls the trial court of a enjoy protection could not claim deed responses discovery with Diversified’s v. Smith Morris purchaser); bona fide show, original that other than the $200 Co., (Tex.App. sale, at constable’s Diversified did paid n.r.e.) (stat ref 'd —Corpus writ Christi or on pay any not taxes other assessment quitclaim in a deed takes with ing grantee any im- property, pay nor did it title). grantor’s in the notice of all defects property. It is undis- provements to that, at time puted constable’s established, as We conclude Halls sale, any did Louis Condra not own inter- law, an that Diversified was not matter of Nonеtheless, est in the Diversi- property. for value without no- purchaser innocent fied claims to own undivided one-half tice. property. interest in the single We Diversified’s issue. overrule title, Having chain of established their judgment. We the trial court’s affirm Halls argued the trial not a purchaser Diversified was bona fide They argued
without notice. Diversi- any
fied could not have received interest in property
their because Louis Condra did any Upon
not have interest in it. examin-
ing deed constable’s received Diver-
sified, we When agree. paid Diversified sale, at the constable’s it received
$200 PITTS, Appellant, J. Terrance estate, conveyed right, deed that “all of the D. title interest which the said Louis property.
Condra had” deed BAIL COUNTY DALLAS BOND any warranty. did not contain covenant BOARD, Appellee. hold the constable’s deed to We No. 07-99-0222-CV. Rog quitclaim Diversified is a deеd. See ers, (explaining at 769 the na Texas, Appeals Court deed). quitclaim A quitclaim ture of a Amarillo. title, interest, or conveys any deed claim March 2000. profess it grantor, but does 8,May any Opinion Rehearing
the title valid nor does it contain It of title. See id. warrant or covenants 7, 2000. Rehearing Overruled June person title in the hold does establish deed, ing merely passes but whatever property.
interest has in the grantor Thus, only whatev
Id. Diversified received title, interest,
er or claims Louis Condra
had, Because Louis nothing. which was property in no title to the
Condra had
4H Long, Hill, Atty., Dist. John Clark Bill Dallas, appellee. IV, Atty., Dist. Asst. C.J., BOYD, REAVIS Before JOHNSON, JJ. BOYD, T. Chief Justice.
JOHN challenge to an involves a This pursuant award Act Attorneys’ Award Rights Fees Civil 1988) (42 claims arising § out of U.S.C. County Bail Bond against the Dallas made Title 1983 of under Sеction Board Terrance J. Appellant States Code. United (Pitts), assert- presents points of five challenging adequacy error ed Finding award. no reversible trial court judgment, trial we error *5 it. affirm is appeal from which this
The action which brought was severed from suit between Eddie Dees and originated (the County Bail Board Dallas Bond Board). claims asserting Pitts intervened 42, Board Title Section against the under Code, alleged for 1983 of the United States his including his civil deprivation rights, seeking injunctive right process to due and 42, attorney’s under Title relief and fees suit, the As a 1988. result of Section August judgment trial court rendered 1993, $570,123.81 awarding Pitts in actual him ordering Board to issue damages, card, ID and employee a bail bondsman’s сoncerning the making certain declarations practices Pitts. The of business legality Board also awarded judgment $570,123.81 Pitts owed for forfeiture debts recovery and the Board offset That against that Board. Pitts’s claim for also severed § under 42 U.S.C. 1988. fees fees claim Pitts’s severed for 8, February to the court was tried testimony his attor- presented the He Price, expended Carolyn that she ney, in the civil representing hours Pitts 1098 Price, hourly Findley Arlington, ap- and that a reasonable Carolyn rights action The Board rate for her services was pellant. $175. 412
presented evidence that
gard
125 hours was a
all evidence and inferences to the
reasonable amount of
timе work on the
contrary. Lewelling
Lewelling,
case
hourly
(Tex.1990).
and a reasonable
164,
rate for a S.W.2d
If
there
person
experience
of Price’s
was between more than a scintilla of
support
evidence to
The trial
$100
court rendered
$135.
finding,
challenge
the no-evidence
5, 1999,
judgment March
awarding Pitts must fail.
Id. In considering a factual
$30,000in attorney’s
in pros-
fees incurred
sufficiency point, we review all the evi
ecuting his Section 1983
judg-
suit. The
dence and
if
only
challenged
reverse
$5,000
ment also awarded
for an
finding
against
is so
great weight
$2,500
the Court of Appeals,
event
preponderance of the evidence as to be
petition
filed,
for discretionary review was
manifestly unjust. Pool v. Ford Motor
$1,500
and an additional
in the event the Co.,
629,
(Tex.1986).
We
petition
granted.
requested
are not so bound by the trial court’s con
findings of fact and conclusions of law on
law,
clusions of
and review those conclu
March 10. He then
filed motion for new sions de novo in order to determine their
trial and
past
notice of
due findings of fact
Bludworth,
correctness. Mercer v.
April
conclusions of law on
5. April
On
(Tex.App
S.W.2d
[1st
. —Houston
signed
the trial court
findings of fact
n.r.e.),
writ
Dist.]
ref'd
reversed on
and conclusions of law proposed by the
grounds, Shumway
other
v. Horizon Cred
Board.
challenges
Pitts now
the trial
(Tex.1991).
it Corp., 801
court’s award of
five
parties agree
thаt the determination
points of asserted error.
fees in a case of
type
Pitts’s first assignment
broadly
of error
must be made in
accordance with the
alleges the trial court failed to analyze his
factors set out
Fifth
Circuit
attorney’s fee application in accordance
Georgia Highway
Johnson v.
Express,
with applicable
presents
law. He
three
*6
Inc.,
(5th Cir.1974).
They
F.2d
arguments in support
point.
of this
The
1)
2)
are:
the
and
required;
time
labor
the
argument
first
challenges
legal
the
and
novelty
difficulty
questions
and
of the
in-
sufficiency
factual
of the
support-
evidence
3)
volved;
the skill required
perform
to
ing
findings
certain
of fact
and errors
4)
legal
the
service рroperly;
preclu-
the
the court’s conclusions of law. The second
of
employment
sion
other
due to accep-
assigns error to the court’s failure to make
5)
case;
6)
fee;
tance of the
customary
the
particular findings,
argument
and the third
7)
whether the fee is fixed or contingent;
challenge
is a
to the trial court’s failure to
imposed by
time limitations
the client or
award
fees and other costs to
8)
circumstances;
the amount involved and
Pitts incurred in the Section 1988 action.
9)
obtained;
experience,
the results
the
reputation,
ability
attorneys;
and
of the
Findings of fact
entered
a case
10)
11)
case;
undesirability
the
of the
the
tried to the bench have the same
and
force
length
nature and
of the
rela-
professional
dignity as a jury’s
jury ques
answers to
12)
client;
tionship with the
and
awards in
P.R.,
In re
tions.
994 S.W.2d
similar cases.
(Tex.App.
pet.
Worth
dism’d
— Fort
w.o.j.). A
findings
trial court’s
of fact are
findings
The trial court’s
of fact were
for legal
sufficiency specifically
renewable
and factual
to
directed
these factors. Ad-
applied
turn,
the same standards
dressing
review
each factor in
findings
those
1)
ing
sufficiency
support
the
of the evidence
were:
The time
required:
and labor
ing
jury’s
finding.
City
Anderson v.
The trial court found
attorney
Price
of
Points,
(Tex.
Seven
keep contemporaneous
did not
time rec-
1991). In reviewing
point,
working
а no-evidence
on the
ords while
Section 1983
only
we consider
the evidence
favorable
case but reconstructed those records about
the decision of the trier of fact and disre December
almost two and one half
2)
the severed
1983 suit or
to the Section
judgment
the
in that ease.
years after
3)
fees;
an award
difficulty
questions
and
novelty
claim for
The
in- $30,000
The court
the issue
fees was
found
“to Price” for
involved:
of an
to a bail
right
employee
reasonable,
volved
when
award
not char-
card.
It did
directly
bond identification
actually to Pitts and not
was
3)
that issue as
or difficult.
4)
acterize
novel
Price;
misstated
findings
legal
skill required to
perform
Pitts,
The
between
relationship
business
prior
Price
The court found
properly:
service
5)
BailAmerica;
charac-
Price,
”
case,
other
handled one
Section
had
com-
BailAmerica as “Pitts’
terization
4)
employ-
pro
preclusion
The
of other
se.
supported by the record.
was not
pany
acceptance
Price
ment due to
of the case:
“nature of
concludes
Pitts
corporate counsel for BailAmerica
was
trial court did
show
errors
to 1993
identified
from 1990
and had not
them,
findings prior
signing
read the
to her
work she had refused due
any other
underlying
did not know
facts
5)
customary
of Pitts.
The
representation
case,
to'
applicable
did not know the law
or
only
noted
finding
fee: The
applications.”
§ 1988fee
hour,
per
although she
sought
Price
$175
6)
client.
any
had never billed
rate to
Pitts’s conclusion notwithstand
contingent:
the fee
or
any
Whether
is fixed
fails to
how
ing,
explain
his brief
fixed in that
The court found
fee was
in the
findings
factual
caused error
these
full
Pitts’
employee
Price was a
time
“for
judgment.
fundamental
trial court’s
It is
BailAmerica”
she had
company
and that
may not be reversed
judgment
that a
7)
agreement
fee
Pitts.
no written
with
caused
probably
unless the error
imposed by
Time limitations
the client or
judgment
or
improper
the rendition of
The
circumstances:
court
found there
from
appellant
probably prevented the
8)
no time
The amount
were
limitations.
case to this court.
properly presenting the
The
involved and
results obtained:
44.1(a).
with
Assuming,
Civ.App.
Tex.R.
prevailing party
found Pitts was the
and the
deciding, that
is correct
out
9)
experi-
the Section
lawsuit.
supported
are not
challenged statements
ence, reputation,
ability
of the attor-
evidence,
by legally
factually
or
sufficient
neys
separately
addressed
probably
failed to
the errors
he has
show
fact,
but is
findings
arguably covered
pre
in an
or
improper
resulted
finding
only
had
the court’s
that Price
presentation
appeal.
of this
vented
*7
prosecuted one other
сlaim.
Section 1983
10)
undesirability
case: The
The
of the
in
argument
sup
Pitts’s second
there
that the
court found
was no evidence
court
point
first
that the trial
port of his
11)
nature and
case was undesirable.
The
number
failing
specific
in
erred
state
relationship with
length
professional
of the
which
hourly
and the
rate for
of hours
the client: The court found Price was
argu
was awarded.
In that
compensation
years
of Pitts for almost nine
employee
Butler,
ment,
v.
916
Pitts cites Von Clark
corporate
the rate
and had been
counsel at
(5th Cir.1990).
255, 258
Von Clark
F.2d
12)
$2,500
month.
in simi-
per
Awards
urged
rule
support
inflexible
does
There
lar cases:
was no evidence
appropri
Pitts.
Clark recited
by
Von
in similar cases.
awards
determining
an award
process
ate
involves the
process
fees. That
findings
conclu-
specific
of fact and
“1)
nature
ascertaining]
trial court
challenged
as incor-
by
sions of law
by the
1)
supplied
the services
and extent of
a solo
“plaintiff’
are that:
rect
2)
of the
attorney,
determine the value
for a
actually
when he
worked
practitioner
customary fee
BailAmerica;
according to the
services
bonding company named
bail
3)
work,” and
2)
of the
quality
legal
“by”
Pitts’s
the Section
action was
two
Price,
in the first
party
adjust
when
the fee determined
attorney
she was not
steps, based on the other
ently
factors set out in
designation
found this
unacceptable,
Clark,
Johnson. Von
415 however, the before us. of concerned issue findings court’s fact or conclusions of rights right attorney’s plaintiffs addressed claim for Most a civil law Pitts’s involved attorney’s while in 1988 action. to fees incurred fees and costs the Section recover claim, on fact their civil not places great emphasis prosecuting rights the proceeding Board not contest the evi- fees incurred in a under Sec- that the did in to the concerning prose- fees incurred tion 1988. Pitts has failed show dence claim; however, attorney’s in not cuting awarding the Section 1988 an trial court erred opposing party’s challenge failure to an fees and other costs incurred Sec- of fees and costs not award other does tion 1988 action. party’s recovery to a right establish of and he points, In second third Pitts’s type.
that
It is
burden to show the
Pitts’s
to
alleges
by failing
the trial
erred
by
the
obligated
trial court
law and
reasonable
of hours
determine the
number
facts to award
costs. This
such
he has
2)
rate
(point
аnd the reasonable market
failed
do.
3).
attorney’s
(point
for
services
support
Pitts’s
in
of his second
argument
analysis begins
Our
with the
of
point contains an extensive discussion
attorney’s
a court may
rule that
not award
attorney
performed
the services
his
and
specific statutory
fees and costs without
attorney’s
of the
documenta-
adequacy
El
authority.
Paso Elec. Co.
Texas
challenges
of
expended.
tion
the hours
He
Ins.,
(Tex.
432,
443
Dept.
of
finding
the trial court’s
that Price’s time
1996).
requires
Federal
a party
law also
contemporane-
records
not
were
created
seeking
specify
fees to
“the stat
ously
services
when the
were rendered
ute, rule, or other grounds” showing their
cites a
in
Board
Edu-
footnote Webb v.
to attorney’s
entitlement
fees. See Fed.
Co.,
234,
6,
n.
Dyer
cation
U.S.
54(b).
may
R.Civ.P.
Pitts’s claim
be based
(1985), for
105 S.Ct.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING Appellant Terrence Pitts moves for J. Although allocation rehearing original challenging disposi- our dis costs is a matter the trial court’s points tion in five These points of error. cretion, ap be on and cannot overturned 1) to our failure to him assign error award trial its dis peal unless the court abused 2) costs, affirming of attorney’s the denial cretion, is shown an abuse discretion 3) suit, in holding his section 1988 according when are not allocated to costs the trial court need not state specific it provisions of Rule unless makes hourly number of hours and rate on which University good cause. finding 4) based, awаrd of fees is Marsh, Lake v. Houston-Clear in trial refusing to find error court’s 912, (Tex.App. [1st Dist.] — Houston 5) fading and to his judgment, address 1998, no Because Pitts was success pet.). arguments on “reasonableness.” We sus- ful claim for fees incurred his first points tain Pitts’s two overrule suit, bringing the Section 1983 remaining points. finding any trial court not make relat did cause, point assigns ing good first error he entitled to recov to our under sustain failure to award him costs er court costs Rule 131. We section modify first point rehearing He cites Rule 131 of the his 1988 action. now trial court to award costs arguing that an Rules Civil Procedure him, him the trial court’s mandatory as determined award of costs as suit. bill of party” “successful the Sectiоn 1988 costs.
418
In
point,
argues
his second
Pitts
rehearing,
On
Pitts cites additional cases
erred in failing
we
to reverse the trial
proposition
for the
that
to
the failure
court’s denial of
in
attorney’s fees
the Sec
attorney’s
spent
award
fees for time
in
1988
tion
suit. He
we
contends
did so
or
obtaining
defending a fee
is er-
award
requiring
without
from
evidence
They
ror.
are Johnson v. State Missis-
Board,
(5th
without citing any authority and
Cir.1979);
F.2d
sippi, 606
635
Ustrak
Hauck,
addressing
Fairman,
(7th
without
Cir.1988);
Cruz v.
762 v.
tion to the trial court for a determination those fees The remainder of trial court’s is affirmed. *13 CLARK, Appellant,
Robert L. UNIT; Brock;
J.W. Estelle Milton Mi Velasquez;
chael Prause; Melanie Doe, Co, III;
John and The Texas De
partment Of Criminal Justice-Institu Division, Appellees.
tional
No. 01-99-00862-CV. Texas,
Court of Appeals of (1st Dist.).
Houston
March 2000.
Rehearing Overruled June