McGarvey v. Johnson

S BANKR

ys cio QB

1 Bee \

IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED and DECREED that the “aie ky

.- . .

below described is SO ORDERED. ac &.

Dated: August 22, 2025. Ceeg Za

CRAIG A. oh

CHIEF UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

IN RE: §

§ Case No. 24-51308-cag

STEPHANIE ANNE JOHNSON, §

§ Chapter 7

Debtor. §

GENEVIEVE B. MCGARVEY §

§

Plaintiff, § Adversary No. 24-05065-cag

§

§

§

STEPHANIE ANNE JOHNSON §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER DENYING IN PART, GRANTING IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS (ECE NO. 28)

Came on to be considered Plaintiff Genevieve B. McGarvey’s (“Plaintiff’) Motion for

Attorney’s Fees and Costs (ECF No. 28) (“Motion”); pro se Defendant’s Stephanie Anne

Johnson’s (“Defendant”)1 Response (“Response”) (ECF No. 31); and Plaintiff’s Reply in Support

of Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Reply”) (ECF No. 32).2 Trial on Plaintiff’s

Complaint (ECF No. 1) was heard on June 24, 2025. After trial, the Court stated its oral findings

of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052(a) (“FRBP),

finding Defendant’s debt to Plaintiff nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). The

Court granted a judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $26,902.46 (ECF No. 28). The

Court reserved the issue of attorney’s fees and costs, instructing Plaintiff’s counsel to file a motion

for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to FRBP 7054 and Local Rule 7054-1. Plaintiff’s counsel

timely filed the instant Motion. For the reasons stated herein, the Court has carefully considered

Plaintiff’s Motion and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees, but GRANTS Plaintiff’s

request for Costs. All other relief is DENIED.

JURISDICTION

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).

Plaintiff’s Motion is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (B). Venue is proper

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. Plaintiff and Defendants consent to a final order or judgment

in this Adversary Proceeding.3 This matter is referred to this Court pursuant to the District Court’s

Order of Reference.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s claim is based on a state court judgment related to an “Order in Suit to Modify

Parent-Child Relationship” dated July 30, 2024 (“SAPCR Case”). The SAPCR Case involved the

non-enforcement modification to determine the conservatorship of a minor child. Plaintiff was the

1 James Wilkins represented Defendant at trial but did not file a response to the Motion on her behalf, so Defendant

filed her own Response.

2 “ECF” denotes electronic filing docket number in this Adversary Proceeding.

3 ECF Nos. 10 and 13.

amicus attorney in the state court matter. Defendant, grandmother to the minor child, contested

conservatorship of the minor child. The state court appointed Plaintiff as amicus attorney to advise

the state court on who should be the conservator to the minor child.4 After determining that

Defendant would not be the primary conservator for the minor child, the state court determined

that Defendant would owe Plaintiff for her remaining fees as amicus attorney.

This Court determined that Plaintiff has a nondischargeable debt for unpaid attorney’s fees

as amicus attorney under 11 U.S.C. § 101(41)(A) and § 523(a)(5).5 The Court must now decide

under Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code § 38.001(b)6 if Plaintiff may recover attorney fees

and other costs incurred for collection of the valid claim represented by the Judgment in the

Adversary Proceeding. Generally, bankruptcy courts can only allow creditors to recover attorney

fees in the pursuit of an adversary proceeding if there is a contractual or statutory right, or if some

other exception exists under state law; otherwise, all legal fees are governed by the “American

Rule;” that is each party bears its own costs and attorney’s fees. As explained herein, courts

generally find that there is no contract between an amicus attorney and the parent. Here, Plaintiff

4 The Texas Family Code provides:

(1) “Amicus attorney” means an attorney appointed by the court in a suit, other than a suit filed by

a governmental entity, whose role is to provide legal services necessary to assist the court in

protecting a child’s best interests rather than to provide legal services to the child.

TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN. § 107.001 (West 2015).

5 Unless otherwise noted, all references are to Title 11, 11 U.S.C. _ et seq.

6 The Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code states:

(b) A person may recover reasonable attorney's fees from an individual or organization other than a

quasi-governmental entity authorized to perform a function by state law, a religious organization, a

charitable organization, or a charitable trust, in addition to the amount of a valid claim and costs, if

the claim is for:

(1) rendered services;

(2) performed labor;

(3) furnished material;

(4) freight or express overcharges;

(5) lost or damaged freight or express;

(6) killed or injured stock;

(7) a sworn account; or

(8) an oral or written contract.

TEX. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 38.001(b).

does not qualify under any of the exceptions to the American Rule, so she is not entitled to attorney

fees for pursuing this Adversary Proceeding. Plaintiff may, however, recover her costs under Local

Rule 7054-1(b).7

PARTIES CONTENTIONS

In her Motion, Plaintiff argued that Defendant breached her “quasi contract” with Plaintiff

by not paying the Judgment from the SAPCR Case and Plaintiff should be compensated for her

attorney fees and costs for having to pursue a determination for dischargeability of debt under

§ 523(a)(5).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) (“FRCP”) requires that a claim for attorney’s fees

shall be brought by motion, provide the statute or rule that would allow for the payments of

attorney’s fees, and list the amount of attorney’s fees.8 FED. R. CIV. P. 54(D)(2). Plaintiff argues

that she is entitled to attorney fees and costs because the debt (the Judgment), is rightfully

characterized as “necessaries,” which gives rise to a written contract implied in law, also called a

quasi-contract, authorizing Plaintiff to recover for the collection of her valid claim represented by

the Judgment.9 In addition, Plaintiff argues that her amicus attorney fees constitute “services

rendered” and “performed labor” under Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code § 38.001(b)(1)

and (2). Simply put, the Plaintiff claims she is quasi-contracted with the Defendant as the amicus

7 Local Rule 7054-1(b) provides that “A party awarded costs shall prepare and file a proposed bill of costs no later

than 14 days after the entry of judgment. The proposed bill of costs shall be served on all parties.” Suggested guidelines

are available on the Court’s website.

8 Local Rule 7054-1(a)(1) provides in relevant part that a party seeking attorney’s fees and costs first confer with

opposing counsel about any opposition to the requested fees. Local Rule 7054-1(a)(1) also requires a party seeking

attorney’s fees and costs to provide supporting document to demonstrate that the work was performed at a reasonable

rate and amount of time. Plaintiff complied with these requirements.

9 The Texas Family Code states in part that in a suit to appoint a conservator of a child in which an attorney is appointed

as an amicus attorney, the amicus attorney is entitled to reasonable fees and expenses set by the court. TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. § 107.023 (2005). The statute will be amended to include that attorney’s fees and costs must be both

reasonable and necessary. 2025 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 593 (H.B. 2524) (VERNON'S); see also (ECF 28 at 5).

attorney and entitled to recover her attorney fees for filing and litigating this Adversary

Proceeding.

Defendant argues there is no theory of recovery for Plaintiff because there is no contract

between the Defendant and the Plaintiff arising from the state court custody case. Defendant posits

that Plaintiff “vainly attempt[s] to cobble together a meritless argument” that there is some sort of

“contract” between Defendant and the Plaintiff rooted in Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code

§ 38.001.10 The Defendant argues there are multiple cases that have analyzed this exact issue and

ruled that there is no contractual obligation between an amicus attorney and the parent. The

Defendant contends that the amicus attorney does not represent the child or either parent; therefore,

the amicus attorney has no contractual relationship with Defendant.11

DISCUSSION

ATTORNEY’S FEES

The Bankruptcy Code does not reference whether attorney’s fees are recoverable when

succeeding in a non-dischargeability lawsuit against a debtor. The “American Rule” controls, and

each party bears their costs for their attorney’s fees. Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa,

212 S.W.3d 299, 310–11 (Tex. 2006). Further, to prevail on a claim for attorney’s fees, the party

must have a basis in contract that contains a fee-shifting provision or statute. Asarco, L.L.C. v.

Baker Botts, L.L.P. (In re ASARCO, L.L.C.), 751 F.3d 291, 301 (5th Cir. 2014), aff’d, 576 U.S.

121 (2015). This applies to bankruptcy litigation. Cadle Co. v. Martinez (In re Martinez), 416 F.3d

1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2005); Gugino v. Clark’s Crystal Springs Ranch, LLC (In re Clark),

525 B.R. 107, 130 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2014), aff’d on other grounds, 692 Fed. Appx. 946 (9th Cir.

10 (ECF 31 at 2).

11 See In the Interest of I.M.M. and K.R.M., Children, No. 01-17-00415, 2019 WL 1768998, at *6 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. struck) (holding amicus attorney does not represent the child or parent and that an amicus

attorney is appointed specifically to assist the court).

July 12, 2027). “[I]n adherence to that so-called ‘American Rule,’ ‘attorneys’ fees are not taxable

as costs or recoverable as damages in an adversary proceeding unless such fees are authorized by

statute or through an enforceable contract between the parties.’” Tackett v. McCracken (In re

McCracken), No. 14-4100, 2015 WL 1402888, at *12 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2015) (quoting

First United Bank & Trust Co. v. Buescher (In re Buescher), 491 B.R. 419, 439 (Bankr. E.D.

Tex. 2013)).12

As discussed herein, Texas law governs whether a statute allows for the award of attorney’s

fees. Nonetheless, the Fifth Circuit has held that creditors can recover attorney’s fees if, and only

if, there is a contractual or statutory right to them under state law. Jordan v. Southeast Nat’l Bank

(In re Jordan), 927 F.2d 221, 226–27 (5th Cir. 1991); Luce v. First Equip. Leasing Corp. (In re

Luce), 960 F.2d 1277, 1285–86 (5th Cir. 1992). The Fifth Circuit has not ruled on whether an

amicus attorney appointed under the Texas Family Code has a quasi-contractual relationship with

the parties in a state conservatorship proceeding.

Nonetheless, there is a statutory directive to construe Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice

and Remedies Code broadly to promote its underlying purposes. TEX. CIV. PRAC.

& REM. CODE ANN. § 38.005 (2014); 1/2 Price Checks Cashed v. United Auto. Ins. Co.,

344 S.W.3d 378, 388 (Tex.2011). A directive to interpret a statute liberally does not grant authority

to alter its language or meaning. Schwertner Backhoe Ser., Inc. v. Kirk, (In re Kirk), 525 B.R.

325, 335 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2015). The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code does not contain

a fee-shifting provision, nor is it a contractual provision itself. Id. at 334–35.

Bankruptcy Courts have refused to permit a creditor to recover post-petition attorney’s fees

12 This Court has previously held that absent a contract or statute, a party may not recover attorney’s fees for litigating

a dischargeability action under 11 U.S.C. § 523. Guse v. Carter (In re Carter), No. 22-05041, 2024 WL 2123648,

at *5–6 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. May 10, 2024); Key Equip. Fin v. Cyr (In re Cyr), No. 19-05008, 2020 WL 3119068,

at *3 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. June 20, 2020) (Gargotta, J.).

when the creditor is forced into additional litigation by a debtor’s bankruptcy filing to protect its

judgment against discharge, no matter how equitable it may be. Tritt v. Tritt (In re Tritt), No. 12-

4186, at *29, 2014 WL 1347763, at *9 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2014). The Tritt Court noted that

Congress has not yet established a legal framework that allows a creditor in these circumstances

to avoid the effects of the American Rule, but other courts have noted exceptions to the American

Rule. Id. For example, these exceptions to the American Rule apply when (1) a statute authorizes,

(2) there is a contractual obligation, (3) when a litigant has deliberately disobeyed a court order,

(4) when a litigant has acted in bad faith, and (5) when a litigant recovers a common fund for the

benefit of a group. Sorrell v. Elec. Payment Sys. (In re Sorrell), 292 B.R. 276, 289 (Bankr. E.D.

Tex. 2002). Plaintiff here asserts that Texas law allows Plaintiff to recover her attorney’s fees in

this adversary proceeding.

In Tritt v. Tritt (In re Tritt), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Texas clarified

the significant hurdle a creditor must overcome to obtain a nondischargeable award of attorney’s

fees: the underlying fee-shifting statute or contract must authorize fees specifically for the actions

taken to establish the debt’s nondischargeability. 2014 WL 1347763, at *9. In Tritt, the court held

that pre-petition attorney’s fees awarded by a family court were nondischargeable under

§ 523(a)(15) as a “debt” owed “to a spouse,” consistent with the statutory language. Id. at *5-6.

The court distinguished those fees from the additional fees incurred in litigating the

dischargeability itself. Id. The court found that these later fees were not nondischargeable because

the applicable Texas statute did not provide for such recovery in that context, explaining:

While §106.002 of the Texas Family Code created a statutory exception to the

American Rule by providing for a recovery of attorney's fees necessarily incurred

by a party in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, that exception cannot be

extended to authorize a recovery of additional fees under the statute when such fees

are incurred, not in such a suit, but rather in an action seeking a dischargeability

determination in a bankruptcy court—a scenario that the cited fee-shifting statute

under Texas law simply does not contemplate.

Id. at *9.

In Tackett v. McCracken (In re McCracken), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District

of Texas similarly held that the award for attorney’s fees for the SACPR order should be declared

nondischargeable; however, the recovery of attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting the adversary

proceeding should be denied. 2015 WL 1402888, at *12 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2015). Judge

Bill Parker stated that there is no exception to the American Rule when a creditor pursues an

adversary proceeding, declaring:

[“[I]t is clear that Cohen does not itself create an independent right to attorney’s

fees for the benefit of a party who prevails in a dischargeability proceeding.”].

Thus, while state statutory law allowing for an award of attorney's fees may have

been previously invoked in a pre-petition action in state court that established the

liability of a debtor-defendant for a debt, there is simply no statutory vehicle by

which attorney’s fees subsequently incurred by such a creditor in a bankruptcy

adversary proceeding to render that debt nondischargeable can be assessed against

a debtor-defendant. Renfrow v. Draper (In re Draper), 232 F.3d 688, 696 (9th Cir.

2000); Jonatzke, 478 B.R. at 869; Adamovic v. Lazarevic (In re Lazarevic),

2013 Bankr. LEXIS 3030, 2013 WL 3934010 at *35 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn., July 29,

2013). Without a contractual provision or applicable statutory authority, the

American Rule applies.

Id. at *6.

At least one Texas court in an unreported decision acknowledged that there is no implied

contract between an appointed amicus attorney or any of the parties in a conservatorship case. In

Mustafa v. Pennington, the Texas Third Court of Appeals ruled the plaintiff did not satisfy the

first element for breach of express or implied contract—“the existence of a contract between the

parties.” No. 03-18-00081, 2019 WL 1782993 at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin, Apr. 24, 2019, no pet.

h.). The plaintiff, in the context of a conservatorship proceeding, sought to sue an amicus attorney

on the basis that the defendant (the amicus attorney) breached his duty under the Family Code. Id.

at *2. Mustafa argued that there was an implied contractual relationship between himself and the

amicus attorney and that Pennigton’s breach of those contractual duties gave rise to damages. Id.

However, the Third Court of Appeals reasoned that appointment of an amicus attorney is “to assist

the court, not to represent the child or either of the parents,” and “it is the trial court, not the parties,

to whom the amicus attorney is responsible for the limited purposes delineated in the statute.” Id.

at *4; TEX. FAM. CODE § 107.001(1). Therefore, there was no authority that an amicus attorney

owes contractual duties under a court order requiring a parent to pay the attorney fees. Mustafa,

2019 WL 1782993 at *4.

Plaintiff acknowledges in her Motion that the Bankruptcy Code does not provide for the

payment of attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in a dischargeability action.13 Rather, Plaintiff

argues that there is a quasi-contract between the parties and that Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees may

characterized as necessaries under § 107.023 of the Texas Family Code and therefore

compensable. As noted herein, no court in Texas or federal court has held that there is a contractual

relationship between an amicus attorney appointed under the Family Code and the parties to a

conservatorship proceeding. Further, the. § 151.001(c) of the Texas Family Code states “a parent

who fails to discharge the duty of support is liable to a person who provides necessaries to those

to whom support is owed.” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 151.001(C) (emphasis added). A grandparent

is not a liable parent under this provision for necessaries. Moreover, the Texas Supreme Court has

held that that the Texas Legislature did not intend to provide trial courts with discretion to

characterize attorney’s fees incurred by a party in a non-enforcement modification suit as

necessaries. Tucker v. Thomas, 419 S.W. 3d 292, 300 (Tex. 2013). In reaching this conclusion,

the Texas Supreme Court noted:

Further, the Legislature has specifically provided trial courts with discretion to

characterize fees awarded to an amicus attorney, attorney ad litem, or guardian ad

litem appointed under Chapter 107, Subchapter B, Part 2 as necessaries, but it has

13 (ECF 28 at 5).

not done the same for attorney’s fees awarded to a party in a Chapter 156

modification suit. Id. § 107.023. Because Chapter 156 is devoid of similar

authorization, we conclude that the Legislature did not intend to provide trial courts

with discretion to characterize attorney's fees incurred by a party in a non-

enforcement modification suit as necessaries. Cf. Quick v. City of Austin, 7 S.W.3d

109, 122–23 (Tex.1998) (“[W]hile the Legislature clearly was well-versed in

drafting statutes that explicitly provided that a local act was not effective until

approved by the Commission, the Legislature chose not to include such an express

provision [here]. We presume that this omission has a purpose.”); see also In re

V.L.K., 24 S.W.3d 338, 343 (Tex.2000) (holding that Chapter 153’s statutory

presumption that a child's best interest is served by awarding custody to the parent

in original custody proceedings does not apply in Chapter 156 modification

proceedings in the absence of a similar provision in Chapter 156).

Id.

Further, Plaintiff’s suggestion that an amicus attorney’s fees for pursuing a dischargeability

action are “labor performed” is without merit. To begin, there is no case or statutory provision

under the Family Code that quantifies a request for attorney’s fees in this context as “labor

performed.” The conventional way of determining what constitutes “labor performed” is reserved

for persons who perform manual services in construction and/or one who labors with his or her

hands. See Tenneco Oil Co. v. Padre Drilling Co., 453 S.W. 2d 814, 820 (Tex. 1970) (noting that

“labor performed” for cases involving a request of attorney’s fees is generally reserved for

situations involving manual labor). Finally, Plaintiff’s assertion that her attorney’s fees in pursuing

this dischargeability action constitutes “personal services” under the Family Code is also without

merit. The Fifth Circuit in Kingsley v. Baker/Beech-Nut Corp., 546 F.2d 1136, 1139 (5th Cir.

1977) offered a more reasonable interpretation of what “rendered services” is by applying it to

employer/employee relationships involving the termination of an employee and whether the

employee could sue for “rendered services” and attorney’s fees. This application of “rendered

services” to an employee/employer relationship is a more plausible application of what constitutes

“rendered services” than where an amicus attorney seeks attorney’s fees for enforcing the payment

of her attorney’s fees in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding. The Court could not discern any

statutory basis for construing “rendered services” applies to the dischargeability actions involving

amicus attorney’s fees.

Finally, Plaintiff implores this Court to use its equitable powers in granting her request for

attorney’s fees. The Court notes that the Supreme Court held long ago that “equity follows the

law” and that a court should not rely on equity where the law does not prescribe a remedy. Hedges

v. Dixon Cnty., 150 U.S. 182, 192 (1893).

The Court finds that the prior state judgment for payment of attorney’s fees cannot serve

as a substitute for a contract such that Defendant is contractually obligated to pay Plaintiff for her

attorney’s fees in litigating this Adversary Proceeding. As such, the Plaintiff’s request for

attorney’s fees under FRCP 54(d)(1) and Local Rule 7054-1 is denied.

COSTS

This Court has, however, found that even where there is no statutory or contractual basis

for attorney’s fees, a plaintiff’s in-court costs, plus interest are compensable under FRCP 54(d)(1).

In re Cosas Claras, LP. See JFMPC, LLC v. JTL JV, LLC (In re Cosas Claras, LP.), No. 22-

05049, 2024 WL 3258801 at *6, (Bankr. W.D. Tex. July 1, 2024), appeal docketed, No 24-00231

(W.D. Tex. July 29, 2024). In that case, this Court held that the plaintiffs were not statutorily or

contractually entitled to attorney’s fees. Id. at *17. This Court found it was acceptable that court

costs should be recovered with accompanying interest. Id. at *6. “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(d)(1), in the absence of other statutes, rules or court orders, costs should be granted

for the prevailing party.” Id.

On July 8, 2025, Plaintiff timely requested costs, expenses, and post-judgment interest

along with attorney fees. Applying this Court’s previous reasoning in In re Cosas Claras, LP,

Plaintiff should be entitled to her court costs plus interest as the prevailing party pursuant to

FRCP 54(d)(1).

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis of the applicable bankruptcy and state law, the Court denies the

Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the Adversary Proceeding. Under

the prevailing legal standard—commonly referred to as the “American Rule”—parties are

responsible for bearing their legal fees unless a statutory or contractual basis exists to shift such

costs.

In this case, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of any contractual agreement or

statutory provision that would entitle her to attorney fees. Additionally, no applicable exception

under state law has been identified. Courts have held that no contractual relationship exists

between an amicus attorney and a parent, and thus no legal basis for fee recovery can be inferred

from such a relationship between a grandparent and amicus attorney. Plaintiff may recover court

costs as the prevailing party under FRCP 54(d)(1). According to Plaintiff’s counsel’s affidavit

attached to Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff incurred $1,181.87 in court costs with interest at the federal

judgment rate.14

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is

DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART.

# # #

14 (ECF No. 28, Exhibit 1).