claim the trial court should have awarded them $19,500.00 in attorney’s fees under the contract. We agree. Paragraph sixteen of the contracts governs the sellers’ recovery of attorney’s fees, providing, “If ... Seller ... is a prevailing party in any legal proceeding brought under or with relation to this contract or this transaction, such party is entitled to recover from the non-prevailing parties all costs of such proceeding and reasonable attorney’s fees. This Paragraph 16 survives termination of this contract.” The earnest money contracts provide clear contractual justification for an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in this action. See Emery Air Freight Corp. v. General Transport Sys., Inc., 933 S.W.2d 312, 315-16 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ) (<HOLDING>). For the trial court to award an amount of
holding defendant liable for attorneys fees when the guaranty contract at issue provided for the payment of collection costs and expenses holding parties agreement provided clear contractual justification for the award of costs and expenses including attorneys fees to the prevailing party holding that although we typically review award or denial of attorneys fees and costs for an abuse of discretion where district court denies attorneys fees and costs based upon legal determination that a party is not a prevailing party we review the determination de novo holding that an award of attorneys fees under supreme court rule 38 precursor to rule 222 did not preempt an award of attorneys fees to which one is otherwise entitled and thus appellant could seek an award of attorneys fees pursuant to section 1577300 which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees