,_ v - Fifth Court of Appeals

As shown herein, the UFTA claim award was improper. In the alternative,
if the Court finds that the UFTA claim award was proper, then the attorney's fees
awarded was erroneous.
Appellee failed to present evidence of a lodestar analysis, failed to
segregate attorney's fees, and presented zero evidence of anticipated appellate
attorney's fees.
Law
To support a claim for attorney's fees, a party must prove that the fees were
necessary and incurred. To do this, the party must necessarily prove the base
amount requested is reasonable ("lodestar" analysis). This is accomplished by
providing evidence of the hours worked, the charges per hour, descriptions of the
work performed, a statement that the work was necessary to the prosecution of the
case, and a statement that the fees were reasonable. General Motors Corp. v.
Bloyed, 916 S.W.2d 949, 960 (Tex. 1996). The lodestar method calculates
attorney's fees by multiplying the number of hours expended on an appropriate
hourly rate determined by a variety of factors, such as the benefits obtained for the
plaintiff, complexity of the issues involved, expertise of the attorney, the
attorney's inability to accept other legal work, and the hourly rate customarily
charged in the region for similar legal work. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. v.
Gonzales, 72 S.W.3d 398, 412 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2002, pet. denied).
A party also must segregate attorneis fees. When a party is entitled to
attorney's fees on one cause of action but not the other, the party claiming fees
APPELLANT'S BRIEF 30