DEBORAH MCDONALD v. DONNA A. FOX--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Nueces County (Majority)

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 13th District Court of Appeals » 2012 » DEBORAH MCDONALD v. DONNA A. FOX--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Nueces County (Majority)

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 13-11-00479-CV

Case Date: 11/15/2012

Plaintiff: DEBORAH MCDONALD

Defendant: DONNA A. FOX--Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Nueces County (Majority)

Preview:



NUMBER 13-11-00479-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG


DEBORAH MCDONALD,           Appellant,

v.

DONNA FOX,                  Appellee.


On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
of Nueces County, Texas.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

This is an appeal from the jury's verdict that appellant Deborah McDonald breached her mediated settlement agreement with appellee Donna Fox.  By four issues, McDonald argues that:  (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the award of attorneys' fees to Fox; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the amount of contract
damages awarded to Fox; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the mediator's report regarding the settlement; and (4) the mediated settlement agreement was not enforceable as a matter of law.  We affirm.
I.  Background

McDonald and Fox are sisters.  When their mother died in May 2009, Fox was appointed temporary administrator of their mother's estate.  McDonald then attempted to probate their mother's will.  Fox contested the will and obtained a temporary injunction to stop distribution of the proceeds of their mother's life insurance policy to their brother John Fox, the named beneficiary.  The trial court ordered the parties to mediation to resolve their disputes over the disposition of their mother's estate.
The mediation was held in early January 2010.  At the conclusion of the mediation, a settlement agreement was signed by the parties.  The agreement purportedly awarded to Fox the entire amount of the life insurance policy, a Wells Fargo bank account, and an ING account.  The name of the parties' other brother, Fred Fox, had been crossed out as an additional recipient of the life insurance proceeds.  The agreement also provided that, upon releases signed by McDonald and John Fox to their interests in the life insurance proceeds, Fox would deed her interest in the parties' mother's house to John Fox.
In the days and weeks following the mediation, a dispute arose between the parties over the terms of the agreement.  McDonald and John Fox objected to the deletion of Fred Fox as a recipient of the life insurance proceeds, contending they had never agreed to the cross-out of his name in the settlement agreement.  The parties attempted further mediation over the phone, but negotiations eventually broke down
when McDonald and John Fox refused to sign their releases to the life insurance proceeds.  In April 2010, Fox filed suit against McDonald and John Fox for breach of the settlement agreement.
In her suit, Fox alleged that McDonald and John Fox breached the settlement agreement when they refused to sign their releases to the life insurance proceeds, which prevented enforcement and execution of the remainder of the settlement agreement.  In January 2011, Fox's suit was tried to a jury, which found that:  the settlement agreement gave Fox the life insurance proceeds, the Wells Fargo bank account, and the ING account; McDonald and John Fox failed to comply with the settlement agreement; McDonald and John Fox's failure to comply was not excused; and $199,060.78 would fairly and reasonably compensate Fox for her damages.  The jury also awarded Fox attorney's fees for the services of each of her attorneys in preparing for trial:  $66,287.24 for Monte English's services; and $10,670.38 for Brenda Baker's services.1
1 The jury also awarded fees for English's services in the event of an appeal, but McDonald does not challenge that portion of the fee award.
McDonald and John Fox filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion to disregard the jury's answer, arguing, in relevant part, that there was no evidence to support the attorney's fees awarded for English's services; the jury's damages finding should be reduced to reflect that Fox failed to perform her obligation under the agreement to deed her interest in the mother's house to the defendants; and the agreement was unenforceable as a matter of law.  The trial court denied McDonald and John Fox's motions and entered judgment for Fox in the amount of $281,608.00, which included the damages award, the attorney's fees for both English and Baker, and
$5,589.60 in prejudgment interest.  This appeal followed.
II.  Attorney's Fees

By her first issue, McDonald argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the reasonableness of the attorney's fees awarded for English's services.  Specifically, McDonald argues that there was no evidence offered of the work performed by English or of the reasonableness of shifting the contingency fee English and Fox agreed on to McDonald.  McDonald also argues that Fox failed to segregate English's fees.
A.  Reasonableness of Fees
We review a jury's finding of the amount of reasonable and necessary attorney's fees incurred for sufficiency of the evidence.  Carlile v. RLS Legal Solutions, Inc., 138 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. App.

Download 13-11-00479-cv.pdf