SES Oilfield Acquisitions, Inc. v. Bill Benedick

No. 02-25-00179-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 15, 2026) · Court of Appeals of Texas, Second Appellate District at Fort Worth · January 15, 2026 · No. No. 02-25-00179-CV

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals for the Second District affirmed a trial-court judgment awarding Bill Benedick $102,964 in attorney’s fees after he petitioned to enforce his shareholder right to inspect SES Oilfield Acquisitions, Inc.’s corporate records. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the reasonableness and necessity of the attorney and paralegal fees and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Holdings

  1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding $102,964 in attorney's fees through trial because the billing records, documentary evidence, and counsel's testimony provided legally and factually sufficient evidence supporting the reasonableness and necessity of the award, and SES offered no controverting fee evidence.
  2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by including $19,204.50 in paralegal fees because the record established the paralegals' qualifications, supervision, hourly rates, detailed time entries, and the nature of the work sufficiently to support the award.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Benedick $102,964 in attorney's fees through trial despite SES's contention that the case was substantially complete after July 2024.
  2. Whether the evidence sufficiently supported inclusion of $19,204.50 in paralegal time within the attorney's-fees award.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (17)

  • Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469, 497–502 (Tex. 2019)(applied)
  • Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812, 818 (Tex. 1997)(applied)
  • Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, 801 S.W.2d 880, 881 (Tex. 1990)(followed)
  • Challis v. Fiamma Statler, LP, No. 02-22-00047-CV, 2023 WL 2534470, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 16, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.)(followed)
  • Asta Partners, LLC v. Palaniswamy, No. 02-20-00371-CV, 2021 WL 5133888, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 4, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.)(followed)
  • In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 629 S.W.3d 866, 872 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012)(followed)
  • Mignogna v. Funimation Prods., LLC, No. 02-19-00394-CV, 2022 WL 3486234, at *16–17 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 18, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.)(followed)
  • McGibney v. Rauhauser, 549 S.W.3d 816, 821 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018, pet. denied)(applied)
  • Teal Trading & Dev., LP v. Champee Springs Ranches Prop. Owners Ass’n, 534 S.W.3d 558, 587 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017), aff’d, 593 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. 2020)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 17.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Texas Court Of Appeals Second Appellate District At Fort Worth Court Of Appeals Of Texas Second Appe