ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES | BREACH OF ATTORNEY FEE CONTRACT |
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE PRECLUDES CONSIDERATION OF TESTIMONY THAT FEE CAP WAS AGREED TO
WHERE FEE AGREEMENT ONLY STATED HOURLY RATE
TEXAS SUPREME COURT RULES FOR LAW FIRM THAT SUED CLIENT IN DISPUTE OVER APPELLATE
ATTORNEY'S FEES
David J. Sacks, PC vs. McIntre Haden, No. 07-0487 (Tex. July 11, 2008)(per curiam) (appeal
involving turnover order revered by the Houston court of appeals in attorney's fee collection suit)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT: We reversed the court of appeals’ judgment
with respect to the breach of contract claim, holding that the fee agreement was
unambiguous and that the parol evidence rule bars consideration of evidence of an oral
agreement to cap the fees. Sacks v. Haden, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. 2008) (per
curiam). Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we reverse the court of appeals’
judgment as to the turnover order and remand this case to the court of appeals for
consideration of whether the turnover order was proper under Section 31.002(e). See
Tex. R. App. P. 59.1.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DAVID J. SACKS, P.C. D/B/A SACKS & ASSOCIATES v. CHARLES MCINTYRE HADEN, JR., INDIVIDUALLY, AND
CHARLES MCINTYRE HADEN, JR. & COMPANY D/B/A HADEN & COMPANY; from Harris County; 1st district
(01-03-00025-CV, 222 SW3d 580, 03-08-07)
unopposed motion to consolidate dismissed as moot
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing
oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
(Retrieve Per Curiam Opinion in pdf)
OPINION BELOW Haden v. Sacks (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Mar 8, 2007)(Justice Sherry Radack)
(breach of contract, attorney fees agreement dispute) Justice Elsa Alcala dissented in Haden v. Sacks
Other Decisions in attorney's fees disputes from the Houston Courts of Appeals
OTHER LINKS : 2008 Texas Supreme Court Decisions with Links to Opinions | Per Curiam Decisions
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Sacks v. Haden, No. 07-0487 (Tex. July 11, 2008)
(turnover order appeal)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PER CURIAM OPINION
This is an appeal of a trial court’s turnover order awarding fees a law firm incurred in its efforts to recover
damages awarded for a client’s breach of their fee agreement. David J. Sacks, P.C. obtained partial summary
judgment on its breach of contract claim against former client Charles Haden and his company, and the trial
court awarded Sacks $30,314.38 plus interest. When Haden did not supersede that judgment pending his
appeal of the case, Sacks undertook considerable expense under section 31.002 of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code to secure a turnover order, have a receiver appointed, prevent postjudgment transfer of assets,
and seek dismissal of Haden’s eventual bankruptcy filings. The trial court ruled that Section 31.002(e) entitled
Sacks to attorney’s fees incurred in collection of the judgment, and awarded Sacks $90,000 as reasonable costs
and attorney’s fees.
Haden appealed the underlying breach of contract judgment as well as the turnover order. Initially, the court of
appeals unanimously affirmed both the trial court’s judgment and the turnover order. On rehearing, the court of
appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment on Sacks’s underlying breach of contract claim, holding that the
issue of whether there was a meeting of the minds between the parties was a question of fact that a jury must
decide. 222 SW3d 580, 590–91 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007).
Because the court of appeals reversed the underlying judgment, it also reversed the subsequent turnover order.
Id. at 598.
We reversed the court of appeals’ judgment with respect to the breach of contract claim, holding that the fee
agreement was unambiguous and that the parol evidence rule bars consideration of evidence of an oral
agreement to cap the fees. Sacks v. Haden, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. 2008) (per curiam).
Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment as to the turnover order
and remand this case to the court of appeals for consideration of whether the turnover order was proper under
Section 31.002(e). See Tex. R. App. P. 59.1.
OPINION DELIVERED: July 11, 2008