§ 12.006.Plaintiff's Costs

A mandatory cost award, and its second condition uses a lower standard than the liability section.

The court shall award the plaintiff the costs of bringing the action where the plaintiff prevails and the court finds that the defendant, at the time the defendant caused the recorded document to be recorded or filed, knew or should have known that the document is fraudulent as described by the Government Code provision.

"Knew or should have known" is the important phrase. The liability section requires actual knowledge and two intents; this requires only constructive knowledge.

So the cost award can follow where the damages claim is difficult. A plaintiff who prevails on some basis and shows the defendant should have known the document was fraudulent recovers costs, without proving intent to injure.

The referenced Government Code provision describes a fraudulent document by objective markers — one purporting to create a lien without a statutory basis, a court order, or the property owner’s consent — which is a test a court can apply from the face of the instrument.

The moment of assessment is fixed at filing. What the defendant learned afterwards does not matter; the question is what they knew or should have known when the document went into the records.

Subsection (b) defines the costs broadly: all court costs, attorney’s fees, and related expenses of bringing the action, including investigative expenses.

Investigative expenses are the notable inclusion. Tracing who filed a fraudulent instrument, and establishing that it has no basis, is investigative work that ordinary cost provisions do not cover.

"Shall award" removes the discretion once both conditions are met.