The Dallas Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Chief Justice Carolyn Wright (left), recently held that attorney’s fees awarded in a judgment need not be superseded on appeal. In an opinion last year also by Chief Justice Wright, the Dallas Court held that attorney’s fees awarded in a breach of contract case were not "compensatory damages," and, therefore, were not required to be superseded on appeal. Here, attorney’s fees were awarded under Chapter 134 of the CPRC, otherwise known as the Texas Theft Liability Act. The Court held that Chapter 38 (regarding breach of contract) and Chapter 134 of the CPRC were basically indistinguishable noting that attorney’s fees were mandatory under both provisions. The Court refused to follow the rationale of the Houston (1st) Court of Appeals, which had previously held that attorney’s fees constitute compensatory damages and must be superseded on appeal. Consequently, the Dallas Court denied the Appellee’s request to increase the supersedeas bond to secure the award of attorney’s fees. This creates a spilt of authority between Dallas and Austin, both holding attorney’s fees need not be superseded, and Houston (1st), holding attorney’s fees must be superseded, making it ripe for review by the Texas Supreme Court. The Court’s opinion in Imagine Automotive Group, Inc. v. Boardwalk Motor Cars, LLC can be found here.