pending causes of action to avoid surprise or prejudice to the Association. They also acknowledged during oral argument before this Court that the same legal reasoning applies to their declaratory judgment and to the questions submitted to the jury. Plaintiffs cannot have it both ways. If a trial amendment to add a request for declaratory relief is not prejudicial or a surprise because it involves the same legal reasoning and evidence and does not change the nature of the case, then it cannot at the same time serve as a non-duplicative basis for the recovery of attorney’s fees. For these reasons, this ease falls squarely within the rule that a party cannot use the Declaratory Judgments Act as a vehicle to obtain otherwise impermissible attorneys’ fees. MBM Fin. Corp., 292 S.W.3d at 669 (<HOLDING>). Because the declaratory relief awarded by the
holding property owner not entitled to award of attorneys fees under declaratory judgments act because his declaratory judgment counterclaim did not present any issues beyond the homeowners associations cause of action recognizing that a party can obtain declaratory relief but still not be entitled to an award of attorneys fees under the declaratory judgments act holding that issues as to whether declaratory relief should be granted had become moot and would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but that under hallman the entire appeal was not moot because there still was a live controversy as to whether appellee was entitled to recover attorneys fees under the declaratory judgments act and therefore issues regarding attorneys fees were not moot and would be decided holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action holding attorneys fees waived in lawsuit brought under declaratory judgments act to interpret statute