Sec. 106.002. ATTORNEY'S FEES, COURT COSTS, AND EXPENSES. (a) In a suit or motion under this title and in a habeas corpus proceeding, the court may render judgment for reasonable and necessary attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses and order the judgment and postjudgment interest to be paid directly to an attorney.
(b) A judgment for attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses may be enforced in the attorney's name by any means available for the enforcement of a judgment for debt.
(c) In rendering a judgment for attorney's fees or expenses under this section, the court shall render the judgment separate from any judgment confirming the amount of arrearages under Section 157.263.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 15, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 478, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 593 (H.B. 2524), Sec. 20, eff. September 1, 2025.
Acts 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., Ch. 828 (S.B. 1404), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2025.
Notes of Decisions
London v. London, 94 S.W.3d 139 (Tex. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “The trial court, nonetheless, awarded attorney fees in the amount of $25,000 to Mahoney, and $15,000 to Leticia for attorney fees she had already paid.”
Rosscer Craig Tucker, Ii v. Lizabeth Thomas, 419 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. 2013).
· cites it 3× “As discussed below, neither the Legislature nor our case law related to the common law doctrine of necessaries has recognized trial court authority to characterize attorney’s fees in non-enforcement modification suits as necessaries or as additional child support.”
Moroch v. Collins, 174 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 106.002 (Vernon Supp.”
Richard Mark Watts v. Ruth Oliver, 396 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “See Tex. Fam. Code § 106.002. Additionally, Richard contends that the interest rate on the judgment for attorney’s fees and expenses exceeds the prevailing legal rate.”
In Re Moers, 104 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “” Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 106.002 (Vernon 2002).”
In re M.G.N., 491 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “2002) (citing Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 106.002 ) (“An attorney’s fees award in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship is discretionary with the trial court.”
Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002).
“See Tex. Fam.Code § 106.002. In light of our decision today, the trial court should have an opportunity to reconsider the attorney’s fees award.”
Tull v. Tull, 159 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Texas Family Code section 106.002 provides that a “court may render judgment for reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses and order the judgment and postjudgment interest to be paid directly to an attorney” in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship.”
in the Interest of K.M.B & D.R.B., 148 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. App. 2004).
· cites it 5× “, this court based its decision on the language in the former version of Texas Family Code section 106.002, which stated that attorney = s fees in such cases are awarded as costs.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 106.002(a) — 68 cases
Rosscer Craig Tucker, Ii v. Lizabeth Thomas, 419 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. 2013).
“As discussed below, neither the Legislature nor our case law related to the common law doctrine of necessaries has recognized trial court authority to characterize attorney’s fees in non-enforcement modification suits as necessaries or as additional child support.”
Tull v. Tull, 159 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. App. 2005).
“Texas Family Code section 106.002 provides that a “court may render judgment for reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses and order the judgment and postjudgment interest to be paid directly to an attorney” in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship.”
Richard Mark Watts v. Ruth Oliver, 396 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. App. 2013).
“See Tex. Fam. Code § 106.002. Additionally, Richard contends that the interest rate on the judgment for attorney’s fees and expenses exceeds the prevailing legal rate.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 106.002(a)(1) — 1 case
— Tex. Fam. Code § 106.002(b) — 5 cases
Rosscer Craig Tucker, Ii v. Lizabeth Thomas, 419 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. 2013).
“As discussed below, neither the Legislature nor our case law related to the common law doctrine of necessaries has recognized trial court authority to characterize attorney’s fees in non-enforcement modification suits as necessaries or as additional child support.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.