Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001

Section 38.001(8) does not allow attorney’s fees on a contract claim when the claimant does not prevail on that claim.

Glenn A. Wade and Karen Wade v. XTO Energy Inc. · filed 2013-01-24(8)

Furthermore, because the trial court correctly granted JNOV on the Wades’ breach of contract claim, they were not entitled to attorney’s fees on this claim.

Section 38.001(8) allows a contract litigant to recover attorney’s fees only if it prevails on its breach of contract claim and recovers damages.

Juan Julio Morales , Kathryn Alyce Murphy, and Vanderlei Bernardi v. 6800 Southwest Freeway, Inc. · filed 2013-08-06(8)

Because the restaurant did not prevail on its breach of contract claim, the trial court did not err in refusing to award attorney’s fees on based on the requested declaratory relief. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (West 2010); MBM Fin’l v. Woodlands Operating Co., 292 S.W.3d 660, 666 (Tex. 2009) (contract litigant may not recover fees under section 38.001(8) unless it prevails on breach of contract claim and recovers damages).

Section 38.001 permits attorney’s fees in a breach-of-contract case when the claimant prevails and recovers damages.

STR Constructors Ltd. and Arch Insurance Company v. Newman Tile, Inc. · filed 2013-02-20

Chapter 38 permits recovery of attorney’s fees in a breach-of-contract case if the litigant prevails and recovers damages.

Section 38.001 does not allow attorney’s fees on a breach-of-contract claim when the claimant is not entitled to recover on that claim.

Bisland v. Financial Indemnity Company · filed 2013-05-02

In their first and second issues, the Bislands argue that they are entitled to a new trial on their claim for attorney’s fees because the evidence is legally and factually insufficient “to support the jury’s refusal to award any attorney’s fees.” ... Having determined that the district court improperly granted the Bislands’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and that the Bislands were not entitled to recover on their third-party-beneficiary claim, we overrule the Bislands’ first two issues on appeal.

Section 38.001 does not allow attorney’s fees on a breach-of-contract claim when the claimant is not entitled to recover on that claim.

Bisland v. Financial Indemnity Company · filed 2013-06-21

Having determined that the district court improperly granted the Bislands’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and that the Bislands were not entitled to recover on their third-party-beneficiary claim, we overrule the Bislands’ first two issues on appeal.

Section 38.001(8) requires a party seeking attorney’s fees on a breach of contract claim to be a prevailing party.

Pioneer Land & Cattle Co. v. Leanne Farrell Collier · filed 2013-05-15(8)

Pioneer’s claim for recovery of attorney’s fees under its breach of contract claims require that it be a “prevailing party.”

Section 38.001(8) does not allow a party that did not prevail to recover attorneys’ fees.

Horseshoe Bay Resort, Ltd. v. CRVI CDP Portfolio, LLC · filed 2013-09-12(8)

Cypress is not the prevailing party in this lawsuit; therefore, Cypress is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under Section 12 of the Contract or under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (West 2008).

Section 38.001 permits attorney’s fees for a prevailing party, so a party whose favorable judgment is reversed is not entitled to fees.

Mintzer v. Houston Medical Testing Services, Inc. · filed 2013-11-14

Because we reverse this judgment and render a judgment in favor of Mintzer, the Service is not entitled to fees.

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney’s fees on an oral contract claim when the claimant recovers some damages, even if the award is much less than the amount sought.

Crisp Analytical Lab, L.L.C. v. Jakalam Properties, Ltd. · filed 2014-01-13(8)

Thus, because the jury awarded Jakalam some damages on its breach of contract claim, Jakalam was a prevailing party under section 38.001(8) and entitled to $49,500 in attorney’s fees.

Section 38.001(1) and (2) permits reasonable attorney’s fees for a successful claim for services rendered or labor performed; equitable relief can establish the claimant as a prevailing party.

Seven N Holdings, L.P. and 7N Oil & Gas Bonanza, L.P. v. Mathis & Sons, Inc. · filed 2014-01-24(1), (2)

Alternatively, Mathis & Sons was entitled to recover attorney’s fees under Section 38.001(1) and (2) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Mathis & Sons received equitable relief from the trial court through the court’s judgment that ordered the lien against Seven Holdings to remain in place. This equitable relief established Mathis & Sons as a prevailing party and authorized the award of attorney’s fees.

Section 38.001 allows attorney’s fees only when a party prevails on a claim for which fees are recoverable.

Inova Renovations, L.L.C. v. David M. Jones and Mindy Legler Jones · filed 2014-12-18

Inova is not entitled to attorney’s fees under chapter 38 because it did not prevail on either its contract or account claim.

Section 38.001(8) allows a party who prevails on a breach of contract claim and recovers damages to recover reasonable attorney’s fees.

Sempra Energy Trading, LLC v. Holmes · filed 2014-07-24(8)

Because Holmes prevailed on his breach of contract claims in the trial court and on appeal and recovered damages, he is entitled to attorney’s fees under section 38.001(8).

Section 38.001(8) allows attorney’s fees for a successful contract claim only when the claimant also recovers money or something of value; fees incurred in the same suit do not satisfy that requirement.

Haubold v. Medical Carbon Research Institute, LLC MCRI, Inc. And On-X Life Technologies · filed 2014-03-14(8)

Because MCRI’s attorney’s fees in the underlying suit were not actual damages, there was no evidence to support an award of attorney’s fees under section 38.001(8).

Section 38.001 permits attorney’s fees for a valid contract claim; construing deed restrictions like contracts does not, by itself, make them contracts that support a fee award.

Tanglewood Homes Association, Inc. v. Stewart A. Feldman, Marla B. Feldman, and Miichael T. Kelly, Trustee · filed 2014-04-30(8)

The same may be said of many types of written documents, from deeds to easements to consent judgments, but that does not mean these documents always meet the essential elements of a valid contract or that non-compliance with their terms is always a breach of contract that will support an award of attorney’s fees.

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorney’s fees for a contract claim only if the claimant prevails and recovers damages.

Villanova v. FDIC as Receiver for Home Savings of America · filed 2014-06-25

In order to recover attorneys’ fees under Chapter 38 for prosecuting these types of counterclaims, a party must first prevail on the underlying claim and recover damages.

Section 38.001 does not allow attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim without an award of actual damages.

SCHUHARDT CONSULTING PROFIT SHARING PLAN, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. DOUBLE KNOBS MOUNTAIN RANCH, INC., Appellee/Cross- · filed 2014-12-17

Because the record does not support an award of actual damages for breach of contract, Double Knobs may not collect attorney’s fees under Chapter 38.

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney’s fees for a contract claim only when the claimant prevails and recovers damages.

First American Title Insurance Company v. Patriot Bank · filed 2015-05-12(8)

In light of our conclusion that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Patriot on its breach of contract claim, Patriot has not prevailed on this claim, and therefore, Patriot is not entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 38.001(8).

Section 38.001 requires a party seeking attorney’s fees to prevail on the underlying claim and recover damages.

Primo v. Rothenberg · filed 2015-06-18

“To recover attorney’s fees under this statute, a party must first prevail on the underlying claim and recover damages.” ... With the reversal of the death penalty sanctions and the underlying fee award of $57,999.63 as set out in the May 22, 2013 order, neither of these two prongs is satisfied. Accordingly, the trial court’s traditional summary judgment in favor of Rothenberg also must be reversed.

Section 38.001 permits attorney’s fees on a breach-of-contract claim only if the claimant prevails and recovers damages.

Jagdish Tummala, M.D. v. Total Inpatient Services · filed 2015-08-27

Having held above that the trial court erred in concluding that Dr. Tummala breached his employment agreement with TIPS, TIPS has not prevailed on its breach-of-contract claim. Thus, it is not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees.

Section 38.001 does not allow attorney’s fees when the claimant does not prevail on an eligible cause of action.

Vakrinos v. The Law Offices of Kenneth D. Hartless · filed 2015-08-31

Although Vakrinos did not bring a separate issue regarding attorney’s fees, his brief contains an argument that he was entitled to them under section 38.001 of the civil practice and remedies code. 17 Because of our disposition of his other issues, we overrule this argument.

Section 38.001(8) does not support attorney’s fees for a breach-of-contract claim when the damages award rests on legally insufficient evidence.

Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. v. Horizon Health Corporation · filed 2015-07-24(8)

We have concluded that the jury’s damage awards for breach of contract were supported by legally insufficient evidence of future lost profits; therefore, section 38.001(8) cannot support Horizon’s recovery of attorneys’ fees.

Section 38.001(8) does not authorize attorney’s fees for a party who merely defeats a claim without recovering money or anything of value.

Texas Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Sampley · filed 2015-05-26(8)

When asserting entitlement to attorney’s fees, Sampley did not plead for damages or anything of value, or present to the trial court any evidence supporting her recovery of such. Rather she simply argued against Batt’s removal and asked for attorney’s fees. This is not a claim on which attorney’s fees may be awarded under section 38.001.

Section 38.001 does not support an award of attorney’s fees on a breach of contract claim when the breach of contract judgment is improper.

Cummins v. Bat World Sanctuary and Amanda Lollar · filed 2015-04-09

Because we have held that the judgment for breach of contract was improper, we must also hold that the award of attorney’s fees based on the contract was improper.

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim only if the claimant prevails on that claim.

Pelco Construction Company v. Chambers County, Texas, Kurt Amundson, and Amundson Consulting, Inc. · filed 2015-09-03(8)

Likewise, the attorneys’ fees award must also be reversed. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 2015) (allowing award of attorneys’ fees for breach of contract claim); MBM Fin. Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., L.P., 292 S.W.3d 660, 666 (Tex. 2009) (holding, to recover attorneys’ fees under section 38.001, litigant must prevail on breach of contract claim).

Section 38.001(8) allows attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim when the claimant prevails and recovers damages.

Pointe West Center, LLC v. It's Alive, Inc. and Shamil Qureshi, Individually, and as Agent For, It's Alive, Inc. · filed 2015-09-10(8)

A party can recover attorneys’ fees for breach of contract. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 2015). Likewise, the lease agreement between the parties allows the recovery of attorneys’ fees. In both of these situations, however, the party seeking attorneys’ fees must first prevail.

Section 38.001(8) requires a party to prevail on its contract claim to recover attorney’s fees based on that claim.

Anglo-Dutch Petroleum International, Inc., and Anglo-Dutch (Tenge), LLC v. Greenberg Peden, P.C., and Gerald J. Swonke · filed 2016-10-13(8)

We already have determined that Anglo-Dutch was entitled to summary judgment on Swonke’s individual contract claim as contained in his second amended counterclaim; therefore, Swonke was unable to recover attorney’s fees based on such contract claim.

Section 38.001 requires a party seeking attorney’s fees for breach of contract to prevail on the claim and recover damages.

Westport Oil & Gas Company, L.P. N/K/A Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore, L.P. v. Betsy Mecom, Donald R. Mullins, Lannie Loui · filed 2016-12-14

Second, because the Mecoms did not prevail on their breach of contract claim for underpaid royalties, they are not entitled to attorney’s fees for breach of contract.

Section 38.001 requires a party to prevail on a qualifying cause of action and recover damages before recovering attorney’s fees.

Marrocco v. Hill · filed 2015-12-22

To recover attorney’s fees under section 38.001, a party must: (1) prevail on a cause of action for which attorney’s fees are recoverable and (2) recover damages.

Section 38.001 permits attorney’s fees for a party that prevails on a contract claim by obtaining specific performance of a settlement agreement.

Palavan v. Brian McCulley, TBW Development, LLC, and Boulevard Realty, LLC · filed 2016-05-19

In order to recover attorneys’ fees under this section, the party seeking fees must be the prevailing party. ... Obtaining specific performance of a contract can also make the party a prevailing party. ... McCulley and TBW Development were prevailing parties and were entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.

Section 38.001 allows reasonable attorney’s fees when a party prevails on its underlying claim and recovers damages.

TXU Portfolio Management Company, L.P. N/K/A Luninant Energy Company, L.L.C. v. FPL Energy, LLC FPL Energy Pecos Wind I, · filed 2016-08-18

To recover attorney’s fees under § 38.001, a party must prevail on the underlying claim and recover damages. ... We reverse- the trial court’s judgment awarding costs to the Wind Farms, render judgment that TXUPM is entitled to recover its Chapter 38 attorney’s fees, and remand the case to the trial court to determine the amount of such fees.

Section 38.001 does not allow attorney’s fees on a breach of contract claim when the claimant recovers no damages.

Kartsotis v. Richard L. Bloch, Individually and as a Trustee of the Richard and Nancy Bloch Family Trust, and Nancy · filed 2016-09-02

Because Bloch was not entitled to any recovery under the CIA, there is no basis under chapter 38 for him to recover attorneys’ fees on his breach of contract claim.

Section 38.001 requires findings of liability and damages before attorney’s fees may be awarded.

Garden Ridge, L.P. v. Clear Lake Center, L.P. · filed 2016-09-29

Initially, as explained above, there are sustainable findings of liability and damages as prerequisites for an award of attorney’s fees under Section 38.001.

Section 38.001(8) does not allow a party that takes nothing on its breach-of-contract claim to recover attorney’s fees for that claim.

David Tubb and Superior Shooting System, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. Aspect International, Inc. and James Sterli · filed 2017-01-18(8)

However, Appellants did not challenge the trial court’s conclusion of law that they “take nothing as to their claims of fraud, conversion and breach of contract.” Therefore, they are not entitled to recover attorney’s fees under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Section 38.001.

Section 38.001 requires an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in a breach-of-contract action that proves those fees; a voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not confer prevailing-party status.

Hacienda Records, L.P. v. Ruben Ramos, et a · filed 2018-01-04

This fees award is mandatory for the prevailing party in a breach-of-contract action, who presents proof of reasonable fees. ... The court entered a final judgment in favor of Hacienda, and the earlier voluntary dismissals without prejudice did not confer prevailing-party status on appellants.

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney’s fees on a breach of contract claim only when the party prevails and recovers damages.

Bitter Creek Water Supply Corporation v. Sims · filed 2019-06-28(8)

However, to recover attorney’s fees under Section 38.001(8), the party must prevail on the breach of contract claim and recover damages. ... Based on our disposition of Bitter Creek’s first issue, Sims has not prevailed on his breach of contract claim at this point.

Section 38.001 requires a claimant to prevail on an eligible cause of action and recover damages to obtain attorney’s fees.

J. Bennett White, P.C., Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Wendell Reeder, Appellee/Cross-Appellant · filed 2018-02-14

In order to obtain an award of attorney’s fees, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 38 requires that a claimant both (1) prevail on a cause of action for which attorney’s fees are awarded, and (2) recover damages.

Section 38.001(8) does not support an attorney’s fee award based on contract claims that have been reversed and remanded for a new trial.

O.C.T.G., L.L.P and Sojourn Partners, L.L.C. v. Laguna Tubular Products Corporation and LTP Real Estate, LLC · filed 2018-05-31(8)

Because we are reversing the trial court’s judgment as to Laguna’s breach-of-warranty and breach-of-contract claims against OCTG and remanding these claims to the trial court for a new trial and because the attorney’s fees awarded to Laguna were based on the successful prosecution of these two claims, we also reverse and remand all awards of attorney’s fees to Laguna.

Section 38.001 permits attorney’s fees when a party prevails on a breach-of-contract claim and obtains a monetary judgment, even if the funds are held in the court registry.

Robbie Lesa Hames Horton v. Stovall · filed 2018-07-10

Because Stovall prevailed on her breach of contract claim and obtained judgment for the $245,585.64 proceeds of the sale of the Centenary property in contravention to Horton’s claim, Stovall obtained a recovery and is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 38.001.

Section 38.001(8) requires a trial court to award attorney’s fees when they are proper for a breach-of-contract claim.

Lety Robinson, Individually and D/B/A Kiss'l Flowers Shop, LLC v. Carlos Ochoa, Rosalinda R. Ochoa and Lorena Ochoa · filed 2018-04-05(8)

If attorney’s fees are proper under Section 38.001(8), a trial court has no discretion to deny them.

Section 38.001(8) allows a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim, but a contingent fee agreement does not establish the recoverable amount by itself.

Kishwar Kumar Sharma and Padma Sharma v. Kashif Khan, Abdul Majeed Samma, Murtaza Samma, Acgi Group, Inc., Anantasai, LL · filed 2018-08-16(8)

A party prevailing on a breach of contract claim is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 2015). ... The Sharmas have not established that they are entitled to a $520,000 attorney’s fees award, and that the trial court abused its discretion in not awarding them the amount of attorney’s fees they requested.

Section 38.001 permits attorney’s fees for a contract claim only when the claimant prevails and recovers damages.

David Lawrence "Larry" Glass, Willene Key Glass Boger, Lacy Creek Ranches, LLC, and Glass Properties, Ltd. v. Glas · filed 2018-08-30

To obtain an award of attorney’s fees under Section 38.001, “a party must (1) prevail on a cause of action for which attorney’s fees are recoverable, and (2) recover damages.” ... The trial court did not award Appellees any damages that resulted from the alleged breach of the grazing lease. Accordingly, Appellees were not entitled to a recovery of attorney’s fees for their breach of contract claim.

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney’s fees on a contract claim only if the claimant prevails and recovers damages.

EJ Madison, LLC., a Texas Limited Liability Company v. Pro-Tech Diesel, Inc. · filed 2019-11-22(8)

Because Madison did not prevail on any of its claims, it was not entitled to attorney’s fees or damages.

Section 38.001 allows a party that prevails and recovers damages to recover attorney’s fees even when the principal is paid before final judgment.

Breakwater Advanced Manufacturing, LLC, Mark Leach, Bryan Benoit, and Greg David v. East Texas MacHine Works, Inc. · filed 2020-02-19

To recover attorney’s fees under Chapter 38 of the civil practice and remedies code, a party must first prevail on the underlying claim and recover damages. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 38.001 (West 2015); Nalle, 406 S.W.3d at 173. ... Thus, we conclude that Appellants’ payment of the account prior to the rendition of a final judgment does not preclude ETM from recovering attorney’s fees under Chapter 38.

Section 38.001 generally requires a party to recover damages on a qualifying contract claim to obtain attorney fees.

Boucher v. Thacker · filed 2020-09-01(8)

Here, because Thacker did not recover damages and no contractual provision provided for attorney fees to a prevailing party, Thacker was not entitled to an attorney fee award.

Section 38.001 requires a party seeking attorney’s fees for breach of contract to establish damages independent of those fees.

Tomorrow Telecom, Inc. and Tomorrow West, LLC v. Silvas · filed 2021-06-16(8)

In order for Silvas to recover attorney’s fees under section 38.001 for a breach of contract, he is required to establish that he suffered damages, independent of attorney’s fees.

Section 38.001 does not support an attorney’s fee award when the underlying contract claim fails.

Pizza Inn, Incorporated v. Bob Clairday · filed 2020-11-04

Because Clairday did not suffer an unconscionable hardship, the dis- trict court erred in its application of the equitable-intervention doctrine. That compels the conclusion that the court similarly erred in awarding attor- neys’ fees. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001.

Section 38.001 permits attorney’s fees only for a prevailing claimant; a claimant who takes nothing cannot recover them.

Baylor Miraca Genetics Laboratories, LLC v. Perthuis · filed 2020-12-03

However, such fees are available only to prevailing parties. ... Because we have rendered a take-nothing judgment against Perthuis, we conclude that he is not entitled to attorney’s fees.

Section 38.001(8) does not authorize attorney’s fees when a party recovers no monetary damages on a contract claim.

Whittington v. Jay Green and Connie Green · filed 2020-01-14(8)

Therefore, we hold the trial court did not err in failing to award attorney’s fees in accordance with section 38.001(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 38.001(b)(8) permits attorney’s fees for a contract claim only if the claimant prevails on a claim that authorizes them.

Wood v. Matthew D. Wiggins, Jr. · filed 2021-11-16(b)(8)

Because we have concluded that Wood’s breach of contract claims are barred by the statute of frauds, we hold that Wood has failed to demonstrate that he prevailed on a claim that authorizes the recovery of attorney’s fees.

Section 38.001(b)(8) requires a party seeking attorney’s fees on a breach of contract claim to prevail on the claim and recover damages.

Pruett v. City of Galena Park · filed 2022-07-12(b)(8)

However, he was not a prevailing party on his breach of contract claim and thus is not entitled to attorney’s fees on that basis. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 38.001(b)(8); Peterson Grp., Inc. v. PLTQ Lotus Grp., L.P., 417 S.W.3d 46, 60 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied) (recognizing that to obtain attorney’s fees pursuant to section 38.001, party must prevail on appropriate cause of action and recover damages).

Section 38.001 does not allow attorney’s fees for a breach-of-contract claim on which the claimant takes nothing.

CCC Group, Inc. v. Enduro Composites, Inc. and J.P. MacK Industries, LLC · filed 2021-08-31

Because we are rendering judgment that Enduro take nothing on its breach-of-contract claim against CCC Group, we also sustain CCC Group’s argument under its sixth issue that this court should reverse and render judgment that Enduro take nothing on its request for attorney’s fees under Chapter 38 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 38.001 permits attorney’s fees for a contract claim enforced through specific performance, even without monetary damages.

Young v. Ershick · filed 2022-07-29(8)

Under § 38.001(8), a “valid claim” is not limited to an action seeking monetary damages and may include an action seeking specific performance of the underlying contract.

Section 38.001(b) supports an attorney’s fees award when the claimant prevails on a breach of agreement claim.

Daniel Ogbonna and Kingsley Ekworomadu, Olimax Group Inc., Olimax Manufacturing, LLC and Royalbrave Inc. v. Cruick · filed 2024-05-02(b)

Appellants’ argument under this issue appears limited to asserting that Cruickshank was not entitled to her attorney’s fees because she did not prevail on her claim for breach of the agreement, as discussed under issue one above. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001(b). Because we overruled appellants’ first issue challenging the breach claim, we also overrule appellants’ third issue, which is dependent on success on the first issue.

Section 38.001(b)(8) allows reasonable attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim only if the claimant also recovers actual damages.

Chen v. AmGuard Insurance Company · filed 2023-03-16(b)(8)

Those fees are not available, however, unless the party also recovers actual damages.

Section 38.001 does not allow a plaintiff who takes nothing on a contract claim to recover attorney’s fees because the plaintiff is not the prevailing party.

Tork v. Ray A. and Carmen B. Garcia · filed 2023-03-30

To secure an award of attorney’s fees, a prevailing party must prove that: “(1) recovery of attorney’s fees is legally authorized, and (2) the requested attorney’s fees are reasonable and necessary for the legal representation, so that such an award will compensate the prevailing party generally for its losses resulting from the litigation process.” Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469, 487 (Tex. 2019); see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001 (allowing recovery of attorney’s fees in contractual claims). Here, however, because we previously concluded that the trial court’s take-nothing judgment against Tork was supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence, Tork was not the prevailing party. Therefore, Tork was not entitled to attorney’s fees.

Section 38.001 does not support an attorney’s fee award when reversal of the claimant’s judgment means it is no longer the prevailing party.

Valley Forge, Inc. v. CK Construction, Inc. · filed 2023-05-11

Because we are reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on both of CK’s claims, CK is no longer the prevailing party at this stage of the proceedings, and we must therefore reverse the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees as well.

Section 38.001(b) permits attorney’s fees for a breach-of-contract claim in addition to a valid claim and costs; when the underlying award is reversed, the fee award must also be reversed.

AVS Builders, LLC v. Roger Galpin and James Sharp · filed 2023-08-09(b)

Attorney’s fees are recoverable on a breach-of-contract claim “in addition to the amount of a valid claim and costs.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001(b). As we are reversing the award of the “valid claim and costs,” we must also reverse and remand the award of attorney’s fees.

Section 38.001(b) allows attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim only when the claimant prevails and recovers damages.

Bentley v. Bentley · filed 2024-04-03(b)

To recover fees under this statute, a litigant must do two things: (1) prevail on a breach of contract claim, and (2) recover damages.

Section 38.001 allows a party awarded specific performance on a breach of contract claim to recover reasonable attorney’s fees, even without damages.

Young v. Ershick · filed 2024-05-16(b)(8)

Here, Plaintiff is unquestionably the prevailing party on her breach of contract claim because the Court entered a final judgment awarding her specific performance.

Section 38.001 does not allow attorney’s fees on a breach-of-contract claim when the claimant does not prevail.

American Jereh International Corporation v. Clarke · filed 2024-10-29

Because Clarke has not prevailed on his breach-of-contract claim, he is not entitled to attorney’s fees under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 38.001.

Section 38.001 does not authorize attorney’s fees merely for defeating a breach-of-contract claim when the party recovers no damages or other relief of value.

AKT Investments, Inc. v. T Jordan Towing, Inc. · filed 2025-05-29(b)(8)

In its brief, Jordan relies on Section 38.001 but also recognizes the rule that a recovery of fees under Section 38.001 must be supported by a recovery of damages. ... Jordan did not recover any relief tantamount to the “something of value” principle discussed in the cited authority; it simply defeated AKT’s breach-of-contract claim. Thus, it has failed to bring itself within the principle it cites but does not explain.

Section 38.001(b)(8) permits attorney’s fees for a contract claim only when the party prevails and recovers damages.

Evans Resources, L.P.;Evans I, Ltd.; Evans I Development, Ltd.; Michael Scott Evans and Rose Elaine Evans Shock, as Inde · filed 2025-10-23(b)(8)

The Evans entities did not receive favorable jury findings and thus did not recover any damages for their breach-of-contract claims. Therefore, they were not entitled to attorney’s fees.

Section 38.001(b)(8) permits a prevailing party in a contract dispute to recover reasonable attorney’s fees; a fee claim remains viable while the contract claims remain unresolved.

Springer · filed 2026-02-26(b)(8)

Under Texas law, the successful party in a contract dispute may recover reasonable attorney’s fees. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001(b)(8). But such a claim may only be brought by a prevailing party. See Green Int’l, Inc. v. Solis, 951 S.W.2d 384, 390 (Tex. 1997). As noted, at least a portion of two counterclaims survive, which leaves open the possibility for attorney’s fees recovery. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment on this counterclaim is denied.

Section 38.001 allows attorneys’ fees on a quantum meruit claim only when the claimant prevails and recovers damages.

Elite Concepts, Inc. v. David Field and Bria Field · filed 2026-06-04(1)–(3)

As Elite recovered no damages, it was not entitled to fees under Chapter 38.

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorney’s fees for a valid contract claim, including fees for a successful appeal.

James Lee, Grace Real Estate Management, and Grace Real Estate Management Corporation v. Perez, Eric A · filed 2003-10-23

But as the fee claimant in that case lost on its contract claim, there was no basis for recovering any attorney’s fees—appellate or otherwise.

Section 38.001(8) requires a party to recover damages before it may recover attorney's fees for breach of contract under the statute.

Intercontinental Group Partnership v. Kb Home Lone Star Lp · filed 2007-08-23(8)

The phrase in the statute, which reads "in addition to the amount of a valid claim," implies that a party must first have been awarded damages before it may be awarded attorneys' fees.

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorney's fees on a claim even when an opposing claim entirely offsets it.

Kold-Serve Corp. v. Ward · filed 1987-06-11

Under section 38.001, attorney's fees are recoverable even if the amount of the claim is entirely offset by an opposing party's claim.

Section 38.001 permits attorney's fees in a written-contract suit, but fees due to opposing parties may be set off against each other.

W. W. Masonry, Inc. v. Elliott · filed 1992-02-12

In point of error twenty-two, W. W. Masonry complains of the trial court's refusal to grant attorney's fees for a suit brought on a written contract. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 38.001-.002 (1986). ... We presume that the trial court implicitly found that any fees due either party were set off against each other, and hence awarded no fees to either party.

Section 38.001 permits attorney's fees on a valid contract claim even when an opposing claim exceeds the claimant's recovery.

Palmco Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. American Airlines, Inc., Cross-Appellee · filed 1993-05-20

That American's damages award more than offset Palmco's recovery does not mean that Palmco did not possess a valid contract claim for damages. A party need not have a net recovery in order to obtain an attorney's fee award.

Section 38.001 permits a prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees on a contract claim even when an opposing claim offsets the amount owed.

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Long Trusts · filed 1993-06-15

The fees are recoverable under Section 38.001 even if the amount is entirely offset by the opposing party’s claim.

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney's fees on a contract claim even when an offset eliminates the claimant's net recovery.

A. D. Willis Company, Inc. v. Metal Building Components · filed 2000-10-12(8)

However, under either the terms of the parties' agreement or statute, MBCI's recovery of costs and attorney's fees was not contingent on receipt of a net recovery in its breach of contract cause of action. ... Section 38.001(8) additionally supports the award of MBCI's attorney's fees.

Section 38.001 allows a party that prevails on a breach of contract claim and receives damages to recover attorney's fees, even without a net recovery in the overall suit.

Flagship Hotel, Ltd. v. the City of Galveston · filed 2003-10-02

Further, while only a prevailing party may recover under Section 38.001, net recovery in the overall suit is not required. ... Because Flagship also received damages ($47,322.06), it was entitled to its attorney's fees.

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney’s fees for a party that prevails on a breach-of-contract claim and recovers damages, even when credits and offsets leave no net recovery.

Roger Wisard and Katherine Armstrong v. Henry Koenig and Janis Koenig D/B/A Rio Vista Resort · filed 2015-04-20(8)

The Resort’s net recovery of zero does not bar its award of attorney’s fees under chapter 38.

Section 38.001 allows fees for defending claims that would offset recovery on a note, but fees spent on unrecoverable tort claims must be segregated.

Vaughan v. Raul Medina and Law Office of Raul Medina, P. C. · filed 2020-04-23

Medina was entitled to recover attorneys’ fees for time spent defending against Vaughan’s affirmative claims to collect on the Note which did not have to be segregated. ... However, Medina cannot recover attorney’s fees on his claims for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation. ... As a result, this issue must be remanded to the trial court to determine segregation.

Section 38.001 permits a party that prevails on an oral contract claim to recover attorney’s fees even when an opposing claim entirely offsets its damages.

Bungalow Revival, LLC v. Jose Cruz, Jr. and Sarah Cruz · filed 2025-10-31(8)

Bungalow Revival was not required to obtain a net recovery in order to obtain attorney’s fees under section 38.001.

Section 38.001 does not authorize attorney's fees against a city after the enactment of article 1269j-13.

City of Terrell v. McFarland · filed 1988-12-30

Article 1269j-13 effectively amends section 38.001 so that it no longer authorizes awards of attorney's fees against a city.

Section 38.001 does not authorize attorney's fees against a city because it does not expressly include municipalities.

Caliber Construction, Inc. v. City of Round Rock · filed 1992-04-01

Because § 38.001 does not use any of these terms, § 5.904 precludes an award of attorney's fees, pursuant to § 38.001, against the City.

Section 38.001 permits attorney’s fees for a quantum meruit claim for furnished materials, but a county is neither an individual nor a corporation from whom those fees may be recovered.

Base-Seal, Inc. v. Jefferson County · filed 1995-07-13

The effect of the legislature's use of limiting language in § 38.001 is to preclude recovery of attorney's fees against a county, since a county is neither an individual nor a corporation.

Section 38.001 allows attorney’s fees in a breach-of-contract action against an individual or corporation, but the State and its subdivisions are neither for purposes of the section.

R.C. Crawford and Crawford Heavy and Marine Construction Limited v. Texas Department of Transportation · filed 2004-08-26(8)

Although section 38.001 of the civil practice and remedies code allows a prevailing breach-of-contract litigant to recover attorney’s fees from “an individual or corporation,” the State and its subdivisions are not considered individuals or corporations for purposes of this statute and therefore cannot be ordered to pay attorney’s fees under section 38.001.

Section 38.001 does not authorize attorney’s fees against a state university because it is neither an individual nor a corporation.

Texas a & M University-Kingsville v. Grant M. Lawson · filed 2004-01-29

We agree and hold that section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code does not support the district court's award of attorney's fees.

Section 38.001 does not allow recovery of attorney’s fees from DART because it is a governmental entity, neither an individual nor a corporation.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Agent Systems, Inc. · filed 2008-11-20

The contract in question does not allow for the recovery of attorney’s fees, and section 38.001 of the civil practice and remedies code, the statutory vehicle for recovery of attorney’s fees for breach of contract, is inapplicable to DART.

Section 38.001(8) does not authorize attorney's fees against a municipality because a plaintiff seeking fees under chapter 38 must sue an individual or a corporation.

City of Alton, Carter & Burgess, Inc., Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc., and Cris Equipment Company, Inc. v. Wate · filed 2008-11-25(8)

Moreover, to recover attorney's fees under chapter 38, the plaintiff must sue an individual or a corporation. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001. Alton, a municipality, is not considered a corporation even when it is acting in its proprietary function. See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 5.904(b) (Vernon 2008). Therefore, we conclude the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees pursuant to section 38.001(8).

Section 38.001 limits chapter 38 attorney’s fee claims to its listed categories, which exclude DTPA claims.

Smith v. Smith · filed 1988-07-21

Given the differences in the purposes of the two statutes as well as the types of claims that can be brought under each of the statutes, we hold that the provisions in chapter 38 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code dealing with attorney's fees are not applicable to claims for attorney's fees under the DTPA.

A taxing unit cannot rely on Section 38.001 for attorney's fees in a delinquent-tax collection suit without showing that its claim falls within the section's covered claims.

City of Houston v. First City · filed 1992-03-12

However section 38.003 only provides this presumption for claims of the type described in Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 38.001 (Vernon 1986). They have not presented any evidence that their claim merits this requirement. See Smith v. Smith, 757 S.W.2d 422, 425 (Tex.App — Dallas 1988, writ denied). That section does not apply to the case at bar.

Section 38.001 permits attorney's fees when a party recovers for fraud arising from a breach of contract.

Schindler v. Austwell Farmers Cooperative · filed 1992-05-07

Attorney's fees may be awarded when a party recovers damages for a tort arising from a breach of contract.

Section 38.001 does not authorize attorney’s fees for a conversion claim that is not grounded in a contract with the defendant.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Golden Imports, Inc. · filed 1993-08-12

Furthermore, as a general rule, attorney’s fees are not recoverable in a conversion case. ... However, the contract in Exxon was directly between the plaintiff and defendant; neither Golden Imports nor Montalbano had a contract with MBank. The resolution of Golden Imports’ conversion claim depends primarily on the analysis of MBank’s right of offset, not on contract interpretation. Therefore, we decline to apply the rule of Exxon to this case. Accordingly, there was no legal basis for the submission of either Golden Imports’ or Montalbano’s special issues, on attorney’s fees in this conversion suit.

Section 38.001 does not authorize attorney's fees for an action to enforce an arbitration award after the underlying personal services or contract claims merge into the award.

Kline v. O'QUINN · filed 1994-05-12

Among those claims are claims for personal services rendered and claims on oral and written contracts. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 38.001 (Vernon 1988). Whether the claims asserted by Kline are for personal services or based on contract, those claims have been merged into the arbitration award and her action to enforce that award gives rise to a new and different cause of action for which there is no statutory basis for recovery of attorneys' fees.

Section 38.001 does not authorize attorney fees for a suit involving rescission because rescission extinguishes the contract.

American Apparel Products, Inc. v. Brabs, Inc. · filed 1994-07-14

Thus, a suit involving rescission cannot be one "for" the contract because a contract no longer exists.

Section 38.001 does not authorize attorney's fees for actual damages in a conversion action.

Rosenfeld v. W-3 Management, Inc. · filed 1995-12-19

At least concerning actual damages, there is no statutory authorization for the awarding of attorney's fees in a conversion action.

Section 38.001 does not authorize attorney's fees in garnishment actions.

First National Bank of El Campo, Texas v. John S. Joyce, Individually and D/B/A Joyce Genetics · filed 2001-07-12

Garnishment actions are not among the claims for which attorneys' fees may be awarded pursuant to section 38.001.

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorney's fees for contract claims, but not for defending fraud and unjust enrichment claims.

Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., and Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas v. Material Partnerships, Inc. · filed 2002-06-28

Section 38.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code authorizes recovery of attorney's fees for suits on a contract, but does not apply to defense of actions for fraud and unjust enrichment.

Section 38.001 permits attorney’s fees for a misapplied construction trust fund claim when the claimant seeks compensation for work performed or materials supplied.

Perry & Perry Builders, Inc. v. Galvan · filed 2003-07-24

We conclude that attorney’s fees are available for a claim that construction trust funds were misapplied if the relief requested is compensation for work performed or materials supplied.

Section 38.001(8) does not authorize attorneys’ fees for wrongful discharge claims arising from at-will employment.

Garcia v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. · filed 2002-11-05(8)

That the Texas Legislature explicitly provided for attorneys’ fees awards for these types of wrongful discharge claims indicates that § 38.001(8) does not include them within the purview of claims arising from a contract entitled to attorneys’ fees.

Section 38.001 does not include an action to increase child support among the claims eligible for attorney fees.

London v. London · filed 2002-11-14

Leticia has cited no authority to support the proposition that an action to increase child support is an action on a written contract. Leticia is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness under section 38.003 because this is not an action listed under section 38.001.

Section 38.001 limits Chapter 38's attorney fee exception to the types of claims it describes; other claims require evidence that the fees are reasonable.

the Coca-Cola Company v. Harmar Bottling Company · filed 2003-07-17

Because this claim is not a claim described in Section 38.001, the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees absent any evidence to support a finding that such fees were reasonable.

Section 38.001 requires a party to prevail on a covered claim and recover damages or something of value; it does not authorize fees for this deed reformation suit.

Behrens v. Howard · filed 2003-06-19

To recover attorney's fees under section 38.001, a party must (1) prevail on a cause of action for which attorney's fees are recoverable under that section and (2) recover damages or something of value. ... We find no authority authorizing an award of attorney’s fees in this type of suit.

Section 38.001(8) permits recovery of attorney’s fees for a breach-of-contract claim, but not for tort claims.

C.M. Asfahl Agency v. Tensor, Inc., Quality Drilling Technology, Inc., Quantum Solutions, Inc.,and Allied Signal, Inc. · filed 2004-01-29(8)

The Tensor parties acknowledge the Agency’s entitlement to attorney’s fees on its breach of contract claim, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 1997), and correctly contend that attorney’s fees are not recoverable for the tort claims that the Agency asserted and on which it did not prevail.

Section 38.001(8) allows attorney’s fees for a valid contract claim but not for a promissory estoppel claim.

Doctors Hospital 1997, L.P. D/B/A Doctors Hospital Tidwell v. Sambuca Houston, L.P. D/B/A Sambuca · filed 2004-10-28(8)

But, because the statute’s plain language includes only valid contract claims, and because promissory estoppel does not create a contract, and, in fact, can be successful only when no valid contract exists, we conclude section 38.001(8) does not permit a promissory estoppel claimant to recover attorney’s fees.

Section 38.001(8) does not authorize attorney’s fees for a trespass claim that is not founded on a contract.

Wilen v. Falkenstein · filed 2006-04-06(8)

Generally, attorney’s fees are not recoverable in an action for tort. See New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Tex. Indus., Inc. , 414 S.W.2d 914, 915 (Tex. 1967); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 1997). ... Falkenstein’s action was not founded on the interpretation of a contract, and attorney’s fees were not authorized by statute. ... Because Falkenstein did not seek recovery of his attorney’s fees as a sanction and because attorney’s fees are not authorized by statute or contract in this case, we hold that the trial court erred by submitting questions to the jury regarding attorney’s fees and by entering judgment on the jury’s finding awarding Falkenstein attorney’s fees of $29,700.00.

Section 38.001(8) does not allow attorneys' fees for a conversion claim when the party did not recover on a breach of contract claim.

K-Bar Services, Inc. Brian Kalisek and James Kalisek v. English · filed 2006-04-07(8)

Conversion is not among the causes of action for which attorneys' fees are available under section 38.001, and attorneys' fees ordinarily are not recoverable as part of a claim for conversion.

Claims outside Section 38.001 cannot use Chapter 38's exception to the requirement for evidence that attorney's fees are reasonable.

Reed v. Reed · filed 2008-08-07

Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code contains an exception to this general rule, but is applicable only to the types of claims described in Section 38.001. ... Because this claim is not a claim described in Section 38.001, the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees absent any evidence to support a finding that such fees were reasonable.

Section 38.001 permits attorney's fees when the evidence establishes a claim for services rendered, labor performed, or materials furnished.

Koval v. Henry Kirkland Contractors, Inc. · filed 2008-02-15

Despite the fact that Mrs. Koval failed to address the application of section 38.001 on the merits before us or in the trial court, we consider it because it was raised in the motion for summary judgment and discussed before the court . We agree that the record supports the trial court's findings. The evidence submitted to the trial court supporting Kirkland's claim for rendered services, performed labor, and materials furnished in the repair of the Newey home and the claim's nexus with the estate has been proven as a matter of law.

Section 38.001(1) authorizes attorney’s fees for a prevailing party’s quantum meruit claim based on services rendered.

Jesus Jaramillo, Sr. v. Portfolio Acquisitions, LLC · filed 2010-03-30(1)

Because appellee’s valid quantum meruit claim is based on the rendition of services to appellant, section 38.001(1) authorizes the award of attorney’s fees in this case.

Section 38.001(1) covers claims involving rendered brokerage services and permits attorney's fees when the claimant prevails and recovers damages.

Sjw Property v. Southwest Pinnacle Props. · filed 2010-04-28(1)

The crux of the dispute pertaining to the Trenton Project involves SJW's rendering of brokerage services, or lack thereof, to the Palmer companies, which falls under the purview of section 38.001 of the civil practice and remedies code.

Section 38.001(1) permits recovery of reasonable attorney's fees for a qualifying claim involving rendered brokerage services.

SJW Property v. Southwest Pinnacle Props. · filed 2010-09-23(1)

The crux of the dispute pertaining to the Trenton Project involves SJW's rendering of brokerage services, or lack thereof, to the Palmer companies, which falls under the purview of section 38.001 of the civil practice and remedies code.

Section 38.001 does not authorize attorney's fees for a usury claim.

Robinson & Harrison Poultry Co., Inc. v. Marcelo Galvan, Analicia R. Galvan, and Proveedores International, Inc. · filed 2010-06-17

Marcelo and International's claim is not, however, a claim covered by section 38.001. ... It is a claim for usury.

Section 38.001 permits recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees for breach of an express warranty.

Duncan M. Harrison, Jr., D/B/A/ Paveco Asphalt Paving v. J.W. Nelson Transports, Inc., D/B/A/ Groendyke · filed 2010-10-14

Because Harrison’s breach of warranty fully supports Groendyke’s recovery of both damages and attorney’s fees, we need not address Harrison’s challenges regarding the negligence and negligent misrepresentation theories of liability.

Section 38.001 permits recovery of reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees on a quantum meruit claim.

Rasa Floors, LP v. Spring Village Partners, Ltd. · filed 2010-11-18

Attorney’s fees are recoverable in a cause of action for quantum meruit.

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney’s fees for a contract claim but does not govern fees sought under the Declaratory Judgments Act.

Caroline Ogu and Oakey Ugboaja v. C.I.A Services, Inc and Bridlewood Estates Property Owners Association · filed 2011-03-17(8)

Section 38.001(8) provides a party may recover attorney’s fees if a claim is for “an oral or written contract.” ... However, as noted in the previous appeal, C.I.A. and Bridlewood’s claim for attorney’s fees is not a suit on a contract; their claim was brought under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, chapter 37 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

Section 38.001 does not provide attorney's fees for an implied warranty claim to the extent it sounds in tort.

Murray v. Grayum · filed 2011-06-24

Because Grayum sought damages for mental anguish, his implied warranty claims sounded in tort. Accordingly, attorney's fees are not available under chapter 38 for at least part of his claim for breach of implied warranty.

Section 38.001(8) does not authorize attorney’s fees for a purchase money resulting trust claim, which arises in equity rather than contract.

Scott Monroe and Margaret Monroe v. Jonathan Goff, Daryl S. Harden, and Norman O. Farris · filed 2012-04-30(8)

Because it is a resulting trust case, it cannot also be a contract case, and appellees cannot recover their attorney’s fees because they are neither provided for by statute nor by agreement.

Section 38.001 authorizes attorney’s fees for a successful claim for services or materials provided.

Four Points Business v. Fred Rojas D/B/A Mega Contractors · filed 2013-08-27

Because the trial court had sufficient evidence to support its judgment awarding Rojas damages for the uncompensated services and materials he provided to Four Points, the award of attorney’s fees was authorized. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001 (West 2012) (authorizing the recovery of attorney’s fees for claims for services or materials provided).

Section 38.001(8) does not authorize attorney’s fees when a party pleads and prevails only on a fraud claim.

K.A.West, LLC & Danny Katave v. Gk Investments, Inc., Michael Bareket · filed 2013-09-17(8)

However, the Outside Investors plead and prevailed against Katave on the basis of their fraud claim, not a ... claim for contract. When prevailing on a claim for fraud, a party may not recover attorney’s fees.

Section 38.001 does not authorize attorney's fees for a fraud claim, even when the fraud arose from a breach of contract.

Zorrilla v. Aypco Construction II, LLC and Jose Luis Munoz · filed 2013-10-03

Contrary to AYPCO's contention, in general, attorney's fees are not recoverable in a fraud claim, even when the fraud arose from a breach of contract.

Section 38.001(8) permits attorney’s fees for a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim based in contract when the claimant seeks only economic damages.

Howard Industries, Inc. v. Crown Cork & Seal Company · filed 2013-01-24(8)

Given the nature of the injury alleged, we conclude that Crown’s breach of implied warranty claim was based in contract. Accordingly, we further conclude that it is a claim to which section 38.001(8) applies.

Section 38.001(8) allows attorney’s fees for a breach of implied warranty of title claim seeking only economic damages because the claim sounds in contract.

City Direct Motor Cars, Inc and Mahdi Mohammadaghaei v. Expo Motorcars, L.L.C. · filed 2014-06-05(8)

Given the nature of the injury alleged, we conclude that the claim sounded in contract for purposes of allowing an award of attorneys’ fees under section 38.001(8).

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorney fees on sworn account and quantum meruit claims.

Hossein S. Namdarkhan and Bardia Namdarkhan v. Glast, Phillips & Murray, P.C., Mark C. Enoch, Mark C. Enoch, PC, and Mat · filed 2020-04-24(7), (8)

Sworn account and quantum meruit claims are merely variants of a contract claim, and fees are recoverable on each. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 38.001(7), (8).

Section 38.001 allows recovery of attorney’s fees for claims based on a written contract, furnished materials, or services.

Equistar Chemicals, L.P. v. Indeck Power Equipment Company · filed 2021-03-24

Equistar is entitled to attorneys’ fees. Its claims were based on a written contract, furnished materials, and services.

Section 38.001 allows attorney’s fees for claims based on a contract, the performance of services or labor, or the furnishing of materials.

Equistar Chemicals, L.P. v. Indeck Power Equipment Company · filed 2021-06-03

The court’s Memorandum and Order awarded fees to Equistar under Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which allows fees for claims based on a contract, the performance of services or labor, or the furnishing of materials. (Docket Entry No. 53 at 36–37); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 38.001. Equistar’s claims are based on a written contract and fit within those categories.

Section 38.001 permits a prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees on a quantum meruit claim for services, labor, or materials.

Bushidopro, C.A. v. Nippon Pillar Corporation of America, Inc. · filed 2021-06-09(1)-(3)

Under Texas law, the prevailing party in a quantum meruit claim is entitled to attorney’s fees.

Section 38.001(1) permits recovery of attorney’s fees for promissory estoppel and quantum meruit claims involving rendered services.

Aperia Solutions Inc v. OLB Group Inc · filed 2021-08-19(1)

Therefore Aperia’s quasi-contract claims are recoverable under section 38.001(1).

Section 38.001 permits attorney’s fees for an oral or written contract claim, but a contract claim is only one of its eight grounds for recovery.

Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Ltd. and Lennar Homes of Texas Sales and Marketing, Ltd. v. Whiteley · filed 2021-04-29

And although section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that attorney’s fees may be recovered for a claim based on “an oral or written contract,” this is just one of section 38.001’s eight permissible bases for an attorney’s fees recovery.

Section 38.001 does not authorize attorney’s fees for negligence or intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

Plummer v. Witty Yeti LLC · filed 2021-12-06

Here, Plaintiff relies on two state statutes for attorney fees – Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001 and § 134.005(b). But neither statute provides a basis for fees given the claims asserted (negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress) in this case.

Section 38.001 does not generally authorize attorney fees in eviction cases.

Richard Manning, Tammy Manning, and All Occupants of 1036 Sunset, Waco, TX 76704 v. Mae Johnson and Pat Williams · filed 2021-12-09

Attorney fees are not generally available in eviction cases. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001 (Supp.). ... Because attorney fees were not statutorily authorized, we must presume that they were awarded as Chapter 10 sanctions.

Section 38.001(b)(1) permits recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees for rendered services.

Graham v. Compton · filed 2022-05-10(b)(1)

Under section 38.001 of the civil practice and remedies code, Compton was permitted to recover reasonable attorney’s fees from Graham.

Section 38.001 makes attorney’s fees a recognized remedy for a breach of implied warranties claim sounding in contract.

Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc. and Taylor Woodrow Communities-League City, Ltd. v. Michael Fulcher and Lisa Fulcher · filed 2022-08-04

Attorney’s fees are recoverable under the Fulchers’ pleaded breach of implied warranties (habitability and good and workmanlike construction) cause of action, and thus were a “recognized remedy” for a cause of action considered at arbitration. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 27.004(g); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001–.006.

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorney’s fees on a valid quantum meruit claim.

Champion Food Service, Inc. and Champion Food Service 2, Inc. (Cross-Appellee) v. ProAlamo Foods, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, · filed 2024-12-11

However, chapter 38 “allows the recovery of attorney’s fee for a valid quantum meruit or contract claim.” ... Thus, the Pro Parties could recover their attorneys’ fee under quantum meruit.

Section 38.001 does not allow an incidental beneficiary of a contract to recover attorney's fees.

Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc. and Mike Cunningham · filed 1992-05-06(8)

Therefore, we agree that, at most, Concerned Taxpayers is an incidental beneficiary and is not entitled to recover attorney's fees under section 38.001 in the instant case.

Section 38.001(8) allows a third party beneficiary to recover attorney's fees on a contract claim.

NCNB Texas Nat. Bank v. Travelers Indem. Co. · filed 1992-06-03(8)

Such a third party beneficiary may also recover attorney's fees under § 38.001(8).

Section 38.001 requires proof that attorney's fees are reasonable, but does not require proof that they are necessary.

Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. Howard Ragland, D/B/A Lightning Laydown · filed 1991-08-21

Third, contrary to Mt. Hawley's argument, a plaintiff is not required to show that an attorney's fee is "necessary," but only that is "reasonable."

Section 38.001 requires evidence that claimed attorney’s fees are reasonable and necessary.

Goldman v. Alkek · filed 1993-04-08

Alkek had to show that the fees were reasonable and necessary. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 38.001 (Vernon 1986); see Bettye-Jen, Inc. v. Riley, 614 S.W.2d 623, 624 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1981, no writ). The evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s award.

Section 38.001 permits recovery of all reasonable attorney fees incurred pursuing a successful contract claim, even when the claimant recovers only part of the underlying amount sought.

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Sherwin-Williams Co. · filed 1992-06-10

By its plain language, section 38.001 entitles Santa Fe to recover 100 percent of the attorney fees it reasonably incurred in pursuing the claims upon which it prevailed at trial.

Section 38.001(8) allows attorney's fees for a contract claim when fees attributable to claims for which recovery is unavailable are excluded; the court accepted the documented percentage reductions here.

Judy Kay Miller White v. InteCom, Inc. And Winstead, Sechrest & Minick, P.C. · filed 1995-09-13(8)

Our review of the record reveals, however, that the uncontroverted summary judgment evidence indicated that fees were reduced by ten percent overall in order to account for time spent on the assigned claims, for which attorney's fees are not recoverable. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001(8) (West 1986). In addition, during a period when a considerable amount of time was spent on the assigned claim issues, fees were reduced by forty percent. We find Miller White's arguments to be without merit, and overrule her eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth points of error.

Section 38.001 does not allow a jury to award zero attorney’s fees on a successful contract claim when the evidence supports a reasonable fee.

ECE Technologies Inc. v. Cherrington Corp. · filed 1999-02-22

The award of zero attorney’s fees could be consistent with the evidence only if the state law authorized the trier of fact in its discretion not to award any fees. Texas law does not.

Section 38.001 permits attorney's fees for contract claims but does not cover fees incurred defending fraudulent-misrepresentation or unjust-enrichment claims.

Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., and Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas v. Material Partnerships, Inc. · filed 2002-10-24

Section 38.001 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code authorizes recovery of attorney's fees for suits on a contract, but does not apply to defense of actions for fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

Section 38.001 allows reasonable attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim without separate proof that the fees were necessary.

Emmanuel Lilly, Individually and D/B/A Lilly's Bonding Service, and D/B/A J & M Pawn Shop v. Tolar · filed 2002-08-22(8)

Apart from providing evidence of the reasonableness of attorney's fees, Tolar was not required, under Section 38.001, to present evidence as to the necessity of such fees.

Section 38.001 requires an award of reasonable attorney's fees when a party prevails on a valid contract claim and satisfies the requirements for recovery under chapter 38.

Sadoskas v. Sadoskas · filed 2003-07-17(8)

A trial court has discretion to set the amount of attorney's fees, but it does not have the discretion to completely deny attorney's fees if they are proper under section 38.001.

Section 38.001 permits recovery of attorney's fees for a breach of contract claim when the fees are reasonable and supported by evidence.

Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. v. Schuster · filed 2004-04-29

Schuster could recover attorney's fees pursuant to her breach of contract claim. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann § 38.001 (West 1997). However, the reasonableness of the attorney's fees awarded is a question of fact and must be supported by the evidence.

Section 38.001(8) requires an award of reasonable attorney's fees to a party that recovers on a breach of contract claim, while leaving the amount to the court's discretion.

Fluorine On Call, Ltd. v. Fluorogas Limited · filed 2004-08-10(8)

Under Texas law, a party who recovers damages for a breach of contract claim may recover reasonable attorney's fees. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 38.001(8) (Vernon 1997); Green Int'l Co. v. Solis, 951 S.W.2d 384, 390 (Tex.1997). If a party has recovered on such a claim, an award of reasonable fees is mandatory. Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 302 F.3d 448, 462 (5th Cir.2002). The amount of reasonable fees, however, is discretionary. Id. ... The district court abused its discretion in awarding such a vast amount of fees, particularly since it originally did so before providing BOC and Fluorogas with an opportunity to respond.

Section 38.001 requires reasonable attorney’s fees but does not require proof that the fees are necessary.

Cordova v. Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. · filed 2004-08-12

However, the fees here were awarded pursuant to Section 38.001, which contains no requirement that fees be both reasonable and necessary.

Section 38.001 entitles a party that recovers on a written contract to reasonable attorney's fees, and evidence of their value can require an award despite a jury's zero-fee finding.

Stockton v. Cotton Bledsoe Tighe & Dawson · filed 2005-01-13

Cotton Bledsoe recovered on its claim on a written contract; therefore, it is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. ... An award of attorney's fees was mandatory, and Cotton Bledsoe produced evidence of the value of services rendered. Therefore, no evidence supports the jury's "zero" finding, and the trial court did not err in disregarding that finding.

Section 38.001(8) permits reasonable attorney’s fees for a breach of contract claim, and the fact finder may award less than the amounts supported by expert testimony.

Cole Chemical & Distributing, Inc. v. Brendan F. Gowing, Individually and as Guarantor · filed 2005-03-15(8)

The fact finder is not bound by expert testimony on attorneys’ fees and may award a lesser amount.

Section 38.001 requires an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who recovers on a written contract claim and proves the fees are reasonable.

Hassell Construction Company, Inc. v. Stature Commercial Company, Inc. · filed 2005-03-17(8)

Although the trial court did find appellate attorney’s fees, we find that its failure to award fees for appellant’s counsel’s trial work amounts to an improper denial under Section 38.001.

Section 38.001 requires an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a party that prevails on a breach of contract claim and proves the fees are reasonable.

DP Solutions, Inc. v. Rollins, Inc. · filed 2003-12-31

Under Texas law, there is discretion to determine the amount of the attorneys’ fee award, but an award of reasonable fees is mandatory if a party prevails in a breach of contract case and there is proof of reasonable fees.

Section 38.001(8) requires an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to a party that prevails on a breach of contract claim and proves the fees are reasonable.

Penton v. American Bankers Insurance · filed 2004-11-10(8)

Under Texas law, there is discretion to determine the amount of the attorney’s fee award, but an award of reasonable fees is mandatory if a party prevails in a breach of contract case and there is proof of reasonable fees. See DP Solutions, Inc. v. Rollins, Inc., 353 F.3d 421, 433 (5th Cir. 2003); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (Vernon Supp. 2004).