2003, no pet.); West Beach Marina, Ltd. v. Erdeljac, 94 S.W.3d 248, 268 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, no pet.); Chilton Ins. Co. v. Pate & Pate Enterprises, Inc., 930 S.W.2d 877, 896 (Tex.App.San Antonio 1996, writ denied). 9 . Indeed, after determining that a party had not shown that fees were inextricably intertwined, the Dallas Court of Appeals has gone so far as to state that this determination would not bind the trial court on remand and that the trial court was free to revisit the applicability of the "inextricably intertwined” exception. See Geodyne Energy Income Production P’ship I-E, 97 S.W.3d at 789-90. This court has held to the contrary regarding the binding nature of an appellate court's determination of the "inextricably intertwined” exception. See Willis, 118 S.W.3d at 47-48 (<HOLDING>). 10 . We note, however, that a legal rule that
holding that inextricably intertwined exception did not apply that trial court erred by not requiring segregation and that case should be remanded to trial court for determination of the amount of the segregated attorneys fees holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees holding that where trial court erred in applying established law to the facts of the case it must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing to give the trial court an opportunity to address the issue holding that the court of appeals erred in modifying the judgment to include attorneys fees when the trial courts refusal to grant attorneys fees was not the subject of a point of error holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law