Understanding the Impact of UDJA Attorney’s Fees Rulings on Family Law Cases
Manohar Singh Mann, Narinder Singh Nagra, and Bhupinder Singh v. Sikh National Center, Inc., 24-0828, July 25, 2025.
On appeal from Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas
Synopsis
The Texas Supreme Court denied review of the court of appeals decision and expressly declined to decide whether a trial court may award attorney’s fees under the UDJA when it lacks jurisdiction over the underlying claims. Justice Young’s concurrence explains the split in authority and signals a likely future need for the Court to resolve whether wholly lacking subject‑matter jurisdiction forecloses UDJA fee awards.
Relevance to Family Law
Family law practitioners frequently invoke declaratory relief (for example, to clarify ownership of assets, pension rights, or the effect of premarital agreements) alongside divorce, custody, and property disputes. This case underscores a material risk: fee exposure under the UDJA may turn on the court’s jurisdictional posture. If a family-law declaratory claim is later held nonjusticiable or outside a court’s subject‑matter jurisdiction, the viability of any UDJA fee award becomes uncertain. Practitioners must therefore be deliberate about preserving jurisdictional rulings, structuring fee proofs to tether awards to claims the court unquestionably had authority to adjudicate, and considering alternative fee bases grounded in the Family Code or other prevailing‑party statutes.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
SNC, a religious nonprofit, sued three former directors for actions relating to board elections and control of bank accounts and requested declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and UDJA attorney’s fees. Petitioners moved on ecclesiastical‑abstention grounds, and the trial court denied injunctive relief, concluding it lacked jurisdiction under the ecclesiastical‑abstention doctrine but did not dismiss the suit. Subsequent board action and consolidated litigation produced summary judgment and a final judgment awarding attorney’s fees to SNC; the trial court also ordered certain discovery. Petitioners appealed, arguing that the trial court had no jurisdiction to award UDJA fees; the court of appeals upheld the fee award, and the Texas Supreme Court denied review.
Issues Decided
The Supreme Court’s action was limited to denying the petition for review; it did not decide the substantive question presented below. Justice Young’s concurrence framed and discussed the core legal issue: whether a trial court may award attorney’s fees under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act when the trial court lacks subject‑matter jurisdiction over the underlying claims.
Rules Applied
The concurrence and the lower courts’ decisions analyze tension between UDJA fee law and jurisdictional limits. Key authorities and statutes include: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 37.009 (UDJA fees), Tex. Right to Life v. Van Stean, 702 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. 2024) (holding fee awards are unavailable under the TCPA where the court lacks jurisdiction), Yowell v. Granite Operating Co., 620 S.W.3d 335 (Tex. 2020) (UDJA authorizes equitable fees “in any proceeding under the Act” without requiring a merits adjudication), and Harper-related distinctions about prevailing‑party statutes versus equitable fee statutes. The concurrence also surveyed appellate authority allowing UDJA fees despite jurisdictional defects (Devon Energy Prod. Co. v. KCS Res., LLC; Feldman v. KPMG LLP; Castro v. McNabb) and conflicting authority refusing fee awards when the court lacked jurisdiction (N.E. ISD v. Kelley). Precedent requiring dismissal when a court is “totally lacking jurisdiction” (Diocese of Lubbock v. Guerrero) and the Van Stean line regarding TCPA fees informed the analysis.
Application
Justice Young’s concurrence walked through the procedural history and the posture of the parties’ claims to explain why the case is a poor vehicle for resolving the broader UDJA jurisdiction question. The concurrence emphasized two analytic strands. First, UDJA fee awards are equitable and may be awarded to either party under § 37.009 even without a merits ruling, per Yowell and many courts of appeals. Second, where a court is entirely without subject‑matter jurisdiction over a proceeding, precedent suggests it may only dismiss and cannot enter substantive orders, raising the question whether fee awards are permissible in that circumstance. Young tentatively concluded that a court wholly lacking subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot award UDJA fees for claims it could not properly entertain, while leaving open that a court may still award fees where it had jurisdiction over some claims or where the record shows fees are tied to a claim the court properly decided. He declined to resolve the issue because the case’s procedural posture (piecemeal jurisdictional rulings, consolidation of related suits, and the parties’ positions on appeal) prevented a clean decision.
Holding
The Court denied review; no binding statewide holding was issued on the central question whether UDJA fees can be awarded when a trial court lacks jurisdiction. Justice Young’s concurrence provides a persuasive, though non‑binding, statement of the law: he agrees that the question warrants review in an appropriate case and tentatively adopts the view that a court that is “wholly” without subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot award UDJA attorney’s fees based either on the merits of the UDJA claim or on the work spent advancing or defending it. He also recognized that where the court had jurisdiction over some claims or where the fee award can be tied to claims properly before the court, fee awards may remain valid.
Practical Application
For family law litigation, the practical takeaway is twofold. First, do not treat UDJA fee awards as immune from jurisdictional attack: where a declaratory claim might be nonjusticiable, or where party positions invite an abstention or jurisdictional dismissal, counsel should preserve arguments and the record demonstrating that (a) the court had authority to adjudicate the particular declaratory claim at issue, or (b) the requested fees relate to claims the court validly decided. Second, whenever possible, secure fee awards under multiple legal theories—UDJA § 37.009, the Family Code (when applicable), or other prevailing‑party statutes—so that an adverse jurisdictional ruling on one theory does not necessarily vitiate fee recovery. In custody or divorce litigation, be particularly attentive to claims that implicate other fora, religious governance, or arbitration, and carefully plead and prove the nexus between attorney work and claims actually adjudicated by the court.
Checklists
Gather Your Jurisdictional Record
– Obtain and lodge in the record all pleadings, jurisdictional motions, and rulings that establish the court’s authority over each discrete claim.
– Make the trial court sign specific findings or orders that clarify which claims are being decided and why jurisdiction exists.
– If the court denies a plea to the jurisdiction but rules the merits, secure express findings tying the adjudication to “neutral principles” or statutory bases.
Frame Fee Motions to Survive Jurisdictional Attack
– In fee affidavits and briefs, segregate hours and activities by claim and by phase of the litigation.
– Explicitly show which attorney work was devoted to claims the court had jurisdiction to decide; avoid lumped, undifferentiated billing narratives.
– Consider alternative fee bases (Family Code, contractual fee clauses, other statutes) and request relief under each.
Preserve and Present Error for Appeal
– Preserve complaints about jurisdictional rulings and fee awards separately on the record.
– If the trial court rules it lacks jurisdiction over some claims but not others, move for clarification or findings to avoid ambiguity on appeal.
– On appeal, brief both the jurisdictional issue and the sufficiency of the fee award tethered to adjudicated claims.
Litigation Strategy When Declaratory Relief Is Ancillary to Family Cases
– Evaluate whether the declaratory claim could be rendered nonjusticiable by doctrines such as abstention, administrative exclusivity, or forum non conveniens; plan pleadings accordingly.
– If a declaratory claim involves a third‑party institution (religious organizations, trusts, or corporations), anticipate ecclesiastical‑abstention arguments and prepare neutral‑principles support.
– When consolidating related actions (e.g., statutory inspection claims, business organization claims), preserve separate records and rulings to avoid conflating jurisdictional postures.
Citation
Manohar Singh Mann v. Sikh National Center, Inc., No. 24‑0828, July 25, 2025 (Tex.) (petition for review denied; Young, J., concurring).
Full Opinion
Share this content:
