Under our applicable standard of review, a judgment awarding attorney's fees can "be affirmed on any theory of law applicable to the case and supported by the record." McDowell v. McDowell , 143 S.W.3d 124, 131 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, pet. denied). B. Awarding Attorney's Fees Against Matthews Was an Abuse of Discretion Because He Was Not a Party to the DRO's Motion to Enforce/SAPCR

Phoenix argues in support of its petition for permissive appeal that courts differ on whether any given case requires title adjudication. It cites to cases that have held that a plaintiff's claims, though related to out-of-state title, do not involve title adjudication, e.g., McDowell v. McDowell, 143 S.W.3d 124, 127 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, pet. denied) , as well as to cases that have found that a plaintiff's claims involve title adjudication, e.g., Danish Leasegroup, 362 S.W.3d at 225-26. Breitling responds that the difference in these cases stems from the facts of each case.

On this record, appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for sanctions under Rule 13. See McDowell v. McDowell, 143 S.W.3d 124, 131 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, pet. denied) ("Under applicable Texas law, a judgment can be affirmed on any theory of law applicable to the case and supported by the record."). Appellant also requested sanctions under Section 9.012 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

6132b-2.03(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006); McDowell v. McDowell, 143 S.W.3d 124, 129 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, pet. denied). Our review of the record demonstrates Torres did not act in an ownership or control capacity, receive profits, or establish any other factors tending to show the existence of a partnership with regard to Coastal Container Company.

" And, to provide that relief, the trial court needed only to "construe the terms of the agreement and to consider Appellees' actions related to the agreement." Trutec relies primarily on two cases, Hartman v. Sirgo Operating, Inc., 863 S.W.2d 764 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1993, writ denied), and McDowell v. McDowell, 143 S.W.3d 124 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, pet. denied), which it contends are on point. We are of the opinion that the situations in Hartman and McDowell are fundamentally different from the facts in this appeal.

Not all of these factors need be present for a partnership to exist, and no one factor is dispositive. See McDowell v. McDowell, 143 S.W.3d 124, 129 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004, pet. denied). The receipt of a share in the profits, alone, does not by itself constitute proof of a partnership.

Texas courts look to the following factors in determining whether a partnership existed: (1) whether the parties agreed to share profits; (2) whether there were expressions of intent to be partners; (3) whether the parties had a right to control the business; (4) whether the parties agreed to share losses and liability for third-party claims, and (5) whether the parties contributed money or property to the business. See Ingram v. Deere, 288 S.W.3d 886, 899-903 (Tex. 2009); McDowell v. McDowell, 143 S.W.3d 124, 129 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 2004, no pet.). No factor is dispositive; "whether a partnership exists must be determined by the totality of the circumstances."

6132b-2.03(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004); McDowell v. McDowell, 143 S.W.3d 124, 129 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, 2004); see also Partnership Law Committee Comments, TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 6132b-2.03 (Vernon Supp. 2004) ("Given the variety of arrangements that people make, . . . it is not feasible to say exactly which factors must be present, or what the relative weights of the factors should be.").

Under this standard, "a judgment awarding attorney's fees can be affirmed on any theory of law applicable to the case and supported by the record." Interest of Z.O.M., 613 S.W.3d 638, 642 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2020, no pet.) (internal quotation marks omitted); McDowell v. McDowell, 143 S.W.3d 124, 131 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 2004, pet. denied). Here, the Cuellars specifically pled several claims, including statutory and common law violations of the unfair debt collection, a request for declaratory relief regarding their rights in relation to the deeds of trust, notes, and properties, and a breach of contract action; the Cuellars also sought attorney's fees.

Under our applicable standard of review, a judgment awarding attorney's fees can "be affirmed on any theory of law applicable to the case and supported by the record." McDowell v. McDowell, 143 S.W.3d 124, 131 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, pet. denied). B. Awarding Attorney's Fees Against Matthews Was an Abuse of Discretion Because He Was Not a Party to the DRO's Motion to Enforce/SAPCR