Baron Data Systems, Inc. v. Loter

• Decision Date: 07 December 1988
• Docket Number: No. 22965,22965
• Citation: 377 S.E.2d 296,297 S.C. 382
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: BARON DATA SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioner, v. Phillip H. LOTER, Gary N. Smith, and Melvin Gross, d/b/a Gross, Loter & Smith, a partnership, Respondents.

Page 296

377 S.E.2d 296

297 S.C. 382

BARON DATA SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioner, v. Phillip H. LOTER, Gary N. Smith, and Melvin Gross, d/b/a

Gross, Loter & Smith, a partnership, Respondents.

No. 22965.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Dec. 7, 1988.

Decided Feb. 21, 1989.

Harry A. Swagart, III, and James H. Lengel, of Swagart & Lengel, P.A., Columbia, for petitioner.

Francis T. Draine, Columbia, for respondents.

FINNEY, Justice:

This appeal originated from a post-trial order awarding attorney's fees and costs to petitioner, Baron Data Systems (Baron). The respondents, Melvin Gross, Phillip H. Loter, and Gary N. Smith (GLS), appealed on the grounds that the circuit court's award of $26,000 in attorney fees was an abuse of discretion. Baron cross-appealed from the same order on the grounds that it should have received additional attorney fees of $7,390 for 73.9 hours of work. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's order.

This case began when Baron filed a summons and complaint seeking to recover damages and attorney's fees pursuant to two equipment leases between petitioner and the respondents, which leases Baron alleged had been breached by the respondents. Petitioner prayed for actual damages of $10,532.68 and liquidated damages of $69,155.25. Respondents filed an amended answer setting forth numerous affirmative defenses and counterclaims seeking in excess of $500,000 in liquidated damages.

Baron moved for summary judgment. The court dismissed respondents' counterclaims for negligence and product defects and its affirmative defenses of laches and contributory negligence. No appeal was taken from the order granting partial summary judgment.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of Baron for $16,161 actual damages. No appeal was taken. At a subsequent hearing, the trial court awarded Baron $26,000 in attorney fees and $3,252.51 in costs. Baron was denied an additional $7,390 in fees for 73.9 hours devoted to counterclaims. Both sides appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the fees were excessive, but did not specifically address the issue of petitioner's attorney fees for the additional 73.9 hours. There is some uncertainty whether the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order on this issue also.

Petitioner asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court's award of attorney's fees was excessive and seeks clarification concerning the trial court's denial of $7,390 in fees.

The general rule is that attorney's fees are not recoverable unless authorized by contract or statute. Hegler v. Gulf Insurance Co., 270 S.C. 548, 243 S.E.2d 443 (1978). The contracts between the parties provided for reasonable attorney's fees and costs in the event of default by the respondents. Where there is a contract, the award of attorney's fees is left to the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Smith v. Smith, 264 S.C. 624, 216 S.E.2d 541 (1975); Nelson v. Merritt, 281 S.C. 126, 314 S.E.2d 840 (App.1984). Where an attorney's services and their value are determined by the trier of fact, an appeal will not prevail if the findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence. Singleton v. Collins, 251 S.C. 208, 161 S.E.2d 246 (1968).

In awarding reasonable attorney's fees, there are six factors to be considered. See, e.g., Wood v. Wood, 269 S.C. 600, 239 S.E.2d 315 (1977); Bentrim v. Bentrim, 282 S.C. 333, 318 S.E.2d 131 (App.1984). Consideration should be given to all six criteria in establishing reasonable attorney's fees; none of these six factors is controlling. Darden v. Witham, 263 S.C. 183, 209 S.E.2d 42 (1974).

In making its determination, the trial court articulated each of the six factors.

(1) The Nature, Extent and Difficulty of the Legal Services Rendered.

Upon its evaluation of the nature, extent and difficulty of the legal services, the trial court determined that Baron had to expend considerably more time and effort on the case because the defendants had transformed a simple collection action into complex litigation.

(2) The Time and Labor Necessarily Devoted to the Case.

The trial court concluded that "a review of the statements and affidavits of Baron's trial attorney indicate clearly that the time and labor spent were reasonable and not duplicative." The respondents did not dispute this conclusion.

(3) The Professional Standing of Counsel.

The circuit court's determination that Baron's trial attorney is an experienced, skilled attorney, of high professional standing in the community was based upon a careful review of the affidavits of Baron's expert and its trial attorney, which included the attorney's resume. Respondents did not contest the trial court's determination.

(4) The Contingency of Compensation.

Not applicable since this was not a contingency case.

(5) The Fee Customarily Charged in the Locality for Similar Legal Services.

Based upon a review of the attorney's resume, affidavits and its...