Allied Associates, Inc. v. Ina County Mutual Insurance Companies

Court of Appeals of Texas

Allied Associates, Inc. v. Ina County Mutual Insurance Companies

803 S.W.2d 799, 1991 Tex. App. LEXIS 122, 1991 WL 3563

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 17, 1991

DocketC14-90-0615-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 803 S.W.2d 799 (Allied Associates, Inc. v. Ina County Mutual Insurance Companies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allied Associates, Inc. v. Ina County Mutual Insurance Companies, 803 S.W.2d 799, 1991 Tex. App. LEXIS 122, 1991 WL 3563 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

SEARS, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order granting appellee’s motion for sanctions. In two points of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to appellee because there is no evidence to support the award. We affirm.

The record reflects that appellee filed a motion for sanctions against appellant for failure to answer certain discovery requests. After a hearing, the trial judge granted the motion, struck appellant’s pleadings, and awarded $2,000 in attorney’s fees as sanctions for the alleged discovery abuse. Subsequently, a default judgment was entered against appellant. This appeal followed.

Appellant complains that the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to appellee because there was no evidence presented at the hearing on the motion for sanctions to support the award. Our supreme court has held that the amount of attorney’s fees awarded as sanctions for discovery abuse is solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will only be set aside upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion. Brantley v. Etter, 677 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Tex.1984) (per curiam). Further, it is our belief that proof of attorney’s fees expended or the reasonableness thereof is not required when such fees are assessed as sanctions. See Id.; see also Firestone Photographs, Inc. v. Lamaster, 567 S.W.2d 273, 277-78 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1978, no writ).

We note that appellant has not contended in his brief that the trial judge abused her discretion in awarding the attorney’s fees as sanctions. After reviewing the record, it appears to us that the attorney’s fees were obviously assessed as sanctions. We cannot say that the trial judge abused her discretion in granting the sanctions. Accordingly, we overrule appel *800 lant’s two points of error and affirm the order, of the court below.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

SEARS, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order granting appellee’s motion for sanctions. In two points of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to appellee because there is no evidence to support the award. We affirm.

The record reflects that appellee filed a motion for sanctions against appellant for failure to answer certain discovery requests. After a hearing, the trial judge granted the motion, struck appellant’s pleadings, and awarded $2,000 in attorney’s fees as sanctions for the alleged discovery abuse. Subsequently, a default judgment was entered against appellant. This appeal followed.

Appellant complains that the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to appellee because there was no evidence presented at the hearing on the motion for sanctions to support the award. Our supreme court has held that the amount of attorney’s fees awarded as sanctions for discovery abuse is solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will only be set aside upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion. Brantley v. Etter, 677 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Tex.1984) (per curiam). Further, it is our belief that proof of attorney’s fees expended or the reasonableness thereof is not required when such fees are assessed as sanctions. See Id.; see also Firestone Photographs, Inc. v. Lamaster, 567 S.W.2d 273, 277-78 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1978, no writ).

We note that appellant has not contended in his brief that the trial judge abused her discretion in awarding the attorney’s fees as sanctions. After reviewing the record, it appears to us that the attorney’s fees were obviously assessed as sanctions. We cannot say that the trial judge abused her discretion in granting the sanctions. Accordingly, we overrule appel *800 lant’s two points of error and affirm the order, of the court below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

803 S.W.2d 799, 1991 Tex. App. LEXIS 122, 1991 WL 3563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allied-associates-inc-v-ina-county-mutual-insurance-companies-texapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack