Opinion
No. 05-10-00848-CV
01-12-2012
JOHN R. OLDNER, Appellant v. DAVID MEDLOCK, Appellee
REVERSE and RENDER in part, AFFIRM in part; Opinion issued January 12, 2012
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 004-01794-2009
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Francis, and Moseley
Opinion By Justice Morris
After a trial de novo in the county court, John R. Oldner appeals a judgment against him awarding David Medlock damages and attorney's fees for unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty. In two issues, Oldner complains the county court, sitting in its appellate capacity, lacked subject matter jurisdiction to render the total amount of its award and that Medlock was not entitled to attorney's fees on the causes of action under which he recovered. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and render in part and affirm in part.
I.
Oldner filed a lawsuit against Medlock in justice court for breach of an oral contract after a dispute arose between the parties involving the sale and purchase of a truck. In response to the lawsuit, Medlock filed a counterclaim asserting various causes of action. The justice court rendered a judgment in favor of Medlock and against Oldner. Oldner then appealed the adverse judgment to the county court at law. Medlock reasserted his counterclaims in the county court. After a trial de novo before a jury, the county court rendered judgment that Oldner take nothing on his claims against Medlock and that Medlock recover damages and attorney's fees totaling $43,141.21 against Oldner.
The county court's judgment awarded Medlock $9,000 for his unjust enrichment claim, $6,500 on his breach of fiduciary duty claim, $10,000 in exemplary damages, and $17,641.21 in attorney's fees, plus pre- and post-judgment interest. The judgment also awarded conditional attorney's fees for appeals to the court of appeals and the Texas Supreme Court.
II.
In his first issue, Oldner challenges the county court's jurisdiction to render a judgment in excess of the maximum jurisdictional limits of a justice court. It is well-settled that the appellate jurisdiction of the county court at law is restricted to the jurisdictional limits of the justice court. See Garza v. Chavarria, 155 S.W.3d 252, 255 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2004, no pet.); Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705, 708 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.); Kendziorski v. Saunders, 191 S.W.3d 395, 410 (Tex. App.-Austin 2006, no pet.). Among other powers, the justice courts have original jurisdiction of civil matters in which exclusive jurisdiction is not in the district or county court and in which the amount in controversy is not more than $10,000 exclusive of interest. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 27.031(a) (West Supp. 2011). The only time an award over $10,000 is permissible is when additional damages have been sustained as a result of the passage of time, such as attorney's fees. See Kendziorski, 191 S.W.3d at 406, 409 (citing Crumpton v. Stevens, 936 S.W.2d 473, 477 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996, no writ). In this case, Medlock did not plead an amount that was outside the jurisdiction of the justice court. On the contrary, his pleadings in the justice court and the county court requested damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the court. However, the county court's award of compensatory and exemplary damages exceeded the $10,000 jurisdictional limit, and there is nothing in the record to suggest the excess amount awarded arose from the passage of time. See id.
Our conclusion that the county court issued a judgment exceeding its jurisdictional limits, however, does not render its entire judgment void or deprive the county court of jurisdiction over the case. See id. at 410. Rather, only that portion of the county court's judgment exceeding the jurisdictional limit of $10,000 exclusive of interest is void. See id. Accordingly, the county court reversibly erred to the extent that it awarded Medlock damages in excess of $10,000 when such damages did not result from the passage of time. We resolve Oldner's first issue in his favor.
The amount of interest is expressly excluded for purposes of calculating the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 27.031(a)(1).
In his second issue, Oldner asserts the county court erred by awarding Medlock attorney's fees because neither Medlock's claim for unjust enrichment nor breach of fiduciary duty supports such an award. We agree. Attorney's fees are not available for a breach of fiduciary duty claim. See Musquiz v. Marroquin, 124 S.W.3d 906, 913 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2004, pet. denied); S. Concrete Co. v. Metrotec Fin. Inc., 775 S.W.2d 446, 450-51 (Tex. App.-Dallas, 1989 no writ). Likewise, there is nothing in the record to support an award of attorney's fees based on unjust enrichment. At trial, Medlock claimed entitlement to attorney's fees based on section 38.001 of the civil practice and remedies code. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 38.001 (West 2008). Section 38.001 does not authorize attorney's fees on an unjust enrichment claim. See Mobil Producing Tex. & N.M., Inc. v. Cantor, 93 S.W.3d 916, 920 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). Because Medlock did not prevail on a cause of action that entitled him to recover attorney's fees, the county court erred in awarding him such fees. We resolve Oldner's second issue in his favor.
Medlock's pleadings asserted a claim for quantum meruit and not unjust enrichment. Medlock's quantum meruit claim, however, was not presented to the jury.
--------
III.
In conclusion, we reverse that part of the county court's judgment in excess of $10,000 as exceeding the court's jurisdictional limit. We render judgment in favor of Medlock in the amount of $10,000 in damages plus pre- and post-judgment interest. We further reverse the portion of the judgment awarding attorney's fees and render judgment that Medlock take nothing on his claim for attorney's fees. We affirm the county court's judgment in all other respects.
JOSEPH B. MORRIS
JUSTICE
100848F.P05