From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brantley v. Etter

Supreme Court of Texas
Jul 11, 1984
677 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1984)

Summary

holding that amount of attorney's fees to be awarded as sanction is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge

Summary of this case from Skinner v. Levine

Opinion

No. C-2729.

July 11, 1984.

Appeal from the 150th District Court, Bexar County, Tunks, J.

Law Offices of O'Neal Munn, Stephen Parten, San Antonio, for petitioners.

William D. Bailey, William B. Chenault, III, Law Offices of James R. Bass, John G. McGarr, Jr., San Antonio, for respondents.


This case involves a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of real estate brought by one of the buyers, Larry Etter, against the sellers, James and Libby Brantley. Because of the failure of Libby Brantley to comply with discovery orders, the trial court awarded Etter monetary sanctions for attorney's fees, the amount of which to be determined on final hearing. The court also struck Ms. Brantley's pleadings and granted Etter an interlocutory default judgment against her. At the hearing on final judgment, James Brantley failed to appear and was likewise defaulted. The trial court thereupon assessed the monetary sanctions and additionally ordered $500 attorney's fees paid to an interpleader, Stewart Title Company. Libby Brantley appealed, complaining of abuse of discretion as to the imposition of sanctions. She further urged that she was entitled to a jury trial on the amount of attorney's fees awarded. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in respect to imposition of sanctions, but concluded that Ms. Brantley was entitled to a jury trial on the issue of attorney's fees awarded the interpleader, Stewart Title Company, and accordingly reversed that part of the judgment and remanded the cause. 662 S.W.2d 752. Ms. Brantley filed in this court an application for writ of error, which we refuse, no reversible error.

There is, however, language in the opinion of the court of appeals from which it could be inferred that one complaining of the award of attorney's fees as sanctions has the right to a jury trial to determine the amount of such attorney's fees. We do not think it was the intent of the court of appeals to provide for this, but as their opinion is susceptible to such interpretation, we expressly hold that the amount of attorney's fees awarded as sanctions for discovery abuse is solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge, only to be set aside upon a showing of clear abuse of that discretion. Rule 215, Tex.R.Civ.P.


Summaries of

Brantley v. Etter

Supreme Court of Texas
Jul 11, 1984
677 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1984)

holding that amount of attorney's fees to be awarded as sanction is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge

Summary of this case from Skinner v. Levine

concluding that the amount of attorney's fees awarded as sanctions for discovery abuse is solely within the sound discretion of the trial court and will only be set aside upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion

Summary of this case from Maria v. Martinez

concluding 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

Summary of this case from Condit v. Gonzales

rejecting proposition that "one complaining of the award of attorney's fees as sanctions has the right to a jury trial to determine the amount of such attorney's fees" and holding that "the amount of attorney's fees awarded as sanctions for discovery abuse is solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge, only to be set aside upon a showing of clear abuse of that discretion"

Summary of this case from BLOODWORTH v. ADEN

rejecting the proposition that "one complaining of the award of attorney's fees as sanctions has the right to a jury trial to determine the amount of such attorney's fees" and holding that "the amount of attorney's fees awarded as sanctions for discovery abuse is solely within the sound discretion of the trial judge, only to be set aside upon a showing of clear abuse of that discretion"

Summary of this case from Bradt v. Sebek

In Brantley, the plaintiff was awarded monetary sanctions for attorney's fees because of the defendant's failure to comply with discovery orders.

Summary of this case from Nath v. Tex. Children's Hosp.

In Brantley, the plaintiff was awarded monetary sanctions for attorney's fees because of the defendant's failure to comply with discovery orders.

Summary of this case from Nath v. Tex. Children's Hosp.

In Brantley v. Etter, 677 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Tex.1984) (per curiam), the court did not address whether a motion for sanctions was filed pretrial.

Summary of this case from Cherry Petersen Landry Albert LLP v. Cruz

In Brantley v. Etter, 677 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Tex.1984) (per curiam), the court did not address whether a motion for sanctions was filed pretrial.

Summary of this case from Cherry Petersen Landry Albert LLP v. Cruz

disapproving of any inference that a complaining party has a right to a jury trial to determine the amount of attorney's fees as sanctions, and concluding that the amount of such fees is solely within the discretion of the trial court

Summary of this case from Cognata v. Down Hole Injection, Inc.

disapproving of any inference that a complaining party has a right to a jury trial to determine the amount of attorney's fees as sanctions, and concluding that the amount of such fees is solely within the discretion of the trial court

Summary of this case from Cognata v. Down Hole Injection, Inc.
Case details for

Brantley v. Etter

Case Details

Full title:Libby Anne BRANTLEY et al., Petitioners, v. Larry D. ETTER et al.…

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Jul 11, 1984

Citations

677 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1984)

Citing Cases

Knoderer v. State Farm Lloyds

See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.50(c) (West 2011) (providing that "[o]n a finding by the court that an…

Izen v. Move-It Self Storage, LP

We also disagree with appellant's argument that in every instance the issue of attorney's fees "must be tried…