which entitle the recovery of attorney’s fees, can result in the recovery of zero attorney’s fees.” Green Intern., Inc. v. Solis, 951 S.W.2d 384, 389 (Tex.1997). Although Britannia asserts this is a holding, because the Solis court found that the objection based on failure to segregate was waived, this statement is not part of the holding. See id. It is a nonbinding obiter dictum. See Edwards v. Kaye, 9 S.W.3d 310, 314 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (distinguishing between a nonbinding obiter dictum and a judicial dictum). Furthermore, while at some point in the litigation, a repeated refusal to segregate fees might result in an award of zero, this statement from Solis appears in part to contradict a separate holding from Sterling. See Sterling, 822 S.W.2d at 11-12 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that this obiter dictum from
holding that if summary judgment is reversed and remanded parties are not limited to theories asserted in original summary judgment at later trial on merits holding that consideration of a moot case was not required when there was no award of attorneys fees that would be affected by appellate review and the issue has not been preserved for appeal holding that if appellate court determines segregation was required but not done proper remedy is not that party recover no fees but that judgment be reversed and the case remanded for more evidence holding that rendition is remedy for no evidence holding that summary judgment may be reversed when it is based on an error of law