In Estate of Richardson, a remainder beneficiary of a trust filed a declaratory judgment action to declare that the trust would terminate five years after its creation. No. 14-12-00516-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2664 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.], March 14, 2013, no pet.). After the trustee filed a general denial, the beneficiary filed a motion for summary judgment. The trustee did not file a response to the motion and later conceded that the trust would terminate five years from inception. The trustee argued, however, that the remainder beneficiary was not entitled to any attorney's fees sought in connection an uncontested matter. The trial court agreed and denied the remainder beneficiary's request for attorney's fees.
The court of appeals stated that in a declaratory judgment action, the trial court may award reasonable and necessary attorney's fees that are equitable and just. The court held that identifying the amount of attorney's fees that are "reasonable and necessary" presents a question of fact, but determining the amount of those fees that it is "equitable and just" to award is a question of law for the trial court's sound discretion. It is within the trial court's discretion to conclude that it is not equitable or just to award even reasonable and necessary fees. Whether it is equitable and just to make a reduced award or none at all "is not a fact question because the determination is not susceptible to direct proof, but is rather a matter of fairness in light of all circumstances." Id. The court of appeals held that it would not reverse a trial court's denial of a request for attorney's fees unless the complaining party showed a clear abuse of discretion. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of attorney's fees because the trial court could reasonably have determined that it was equitable and just to not award those fees where the fees may have exhausted the funds in the trust, which would divert the funds from the trust's current beneficiaries.
