With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". adjudicated by distinct and separate judgments. In re E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 92 S.W.3d 517, 523 (Tex.2002) (“A severed action becomes a different action”). Because the liens were not an issue to be resolved in the trial court, is it not an issue before us on appeal. See Cherokee Water Co. v. Ross, 698 S.W.2d 363, 365 (Tex.1985) (noting that Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final judgments). We overrule this portion of TA’s argument. TA also contends that the trial court erred by denying TA’s recovery of attorney’s fees. Relying on McKinley v. Drozd, TA argues that the $8,000 offset for remediable defects makes it a prevailing party on its counterclaim for breach of contract, and that it is therefore entitled to its attorney’s fees. 685 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Tex. 1985) (<HOLDING>). We disagree. The $8,000 offset for remediable

A: holding that awarded fees were reasonable and that proof that attorneys fees are necessary apart from testimony as to the reasonableness of the fee is not required
B: holding award of attorneys fees to party prevailing on contract claim is mandatory under section 38001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees
C: 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
D: holding that a party does not need a net recovery to be awarded attorneys fees all that is required is that the party prevail on a just claim
D.