HOUSTON - The 14th Court of Appeals recently concluded the evidence was sufficient to support an attorney’s fees award of $874,900 in a case alleging fraudulent transfer and corporate veil-piercing claims.
In 2013, Andre McCoy obtained a medical malpractice judgment against a physician and Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates for over $9 million, court records show.
In January 2020, McCoy filed suit against 34 additional doctors, including Mary Van Sickle, who had held ownership interests in OGA, in an effort to collect the unpaid balance on the malpractice judgment.
Though he subsequently nonsuited his claims against Van Sickle, she, however, counterclaimed for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.
Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded Van Sickle $874,900 for attorney’s fees through trial, as well as additional contingent fees in the event of an appeal.
On appeal, McCoy challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the attorney’s fees award based in part on the alleged failure to segregate recoverable from unrecoverable fees as required by law.
On April 14, the 14th Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the attorney’s fees awarded, affirming the judgment.
In his brief, McCoy made five arguments as to why the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Van Sickle, which include asserting that there was legally and factually insufficient evidence segregating fees between the veil-piercing and TUFTA claims.
“In short, Van Sickle’s contention that she was not required to segregate fees between claims was supported by both fact and expert testimony…,” the opinion states. “Accordingly, the evidence was not legally or factually insufficient because it failed to show segregation of fees between claims.
“Finding no merit in any of McCoy’s arguments, we overrule his five issues and affirm the trial court’s judgment.”
Appeals case No. 14-24-00501-CV
