With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Dist.] 2009, no pet.). 3 . See 159 S.W.3d 640, 642-43 (Tex.2005). 4 . See id. at 641. 5 . See id. 6 . See id. at 642. 7 . See id. 8 . See id. 9 .See id. at 642-43. 10 . See Tesco Corp. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., No. 01-13-00091-CV, — S.W.3d -,- -, 2015 WL 456466, at *3-4 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 3, 2015, pet. filed) (mem. op.). 11 . See id. 12 . See ante at 451-52, • 13 . As to the claims against the Texas State University System for declaratory and injunc-tive relief based oh alleged adverse personnel actions in retaliation for Ward’s exercise of her free-speech rights, the majority affirms the trial court’s dismissal order. 14 . See Hallman, 159 S.W.3d at 642-43; AVE, Inc. v. Comal County, No. 03-05-00183-CV, 2008 WL 2065857, at *3-4 (Tex.App.—Austin May 14, 2008, no pet.) (<HOLDING>) (mem. op.). . 15 . See Hallman, 159 S.W.3d at

A: recognizing that a party can obtain declaratory relief but still not be entitled to an award of attorneys fees under the declaratory judgments act
B: 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
C: 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
D: 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
B.