Brandt v. Gooding

Decision Date12 April 2010
Docket Number2010-MO-010
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesDonald M. Brandt, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Janice N. Brandt, Deceased, Appellant, v. Elizabeth K. Gooding and Gooding & Gooding, P.A., Respondents.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Heard January 7, 2010

Appeal from Allendale County Paul M. Burch, Circuit Court Judge

Jack B. Swerling, of Columbia; James Mixon Griffin, of Columbia and Richard A. Harpootlian, of Columbia, for Appellant

Daniel A. Speights and Gibson Solomons, both of Speights &amp Runyan, of Hampton, for Respondent Elizabeth K. Gooding; and Joel W. Collins, Christian Stegmaier, and Amy L. Neuschafer all of Collins & Lacy, of Columbia, for Respondent Gooding & Gooding, P.A..

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

We reverse the trial court's award of attorneys' fees and costs to Respondent Elizabeth K. Gooding (Respondent Gooding) and affirm as modified that trial court's award of attorneys' fees and costs to Respondent Gooding &amp Gooding, P.A. (Respondent law firm).

Donald M. Brandt (Brandt) brought a legal malpractice action against Respondent Gooding and Respondent law firm (collectively, Respondents) concerning their representation of him in a real estate transaction. During the course of discovery, Brandt perpetrated fraud on the court by knowingly producing a forged letter. As a result, Brandt's complaint was dismissed, he was held in civil contempt, and was ordered to pay Respondents' attorneys' fees and costs. The trial court's award of attorneys' fees and costs was affirmed on appeal. The parties unsuccessfully mediated the matter. Thereafter, the trial judge entered an order in which Respondent Gooding was awarded $628,268.49 in attorneys' fees and costs and Respondent law firm was awarded $255,353.44 in attorneys' fees and costs. These amounts reflected the fees and costs incurred by the respective parties during the entire course of the action.

Brandt filed this appeal challenging the awards to Respondents. We address the respective awards turning, first, to that of Respondent Gooding and, second, that of Respondent law firm.

First, Brandt argues that the trial court's award of fees and costs to Respondent Gooding was erroneous because she did not enter into a fee agreement with counsel, thus she did not incur any attorneys' fees or costs. We agree.

Where there is no evidence that attorneys' fees and costs were actually incurred by a party, there cannot be an award for fees and costs assessed against another party. See Williamson v. Middleton, 383 S.C. 490, 681 S.E.2d 867 (2009) (holding that where there is no competent evidence that attorneys' fees and costs were actually incurred, they cannot be awarded). After careful review of the record in this case, we find no competent evidence to support the finding that Respondent Gooding incurred any attorneys' fees or costs. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's award of attorneys' fees and costs to Respondent Gooding.

Second Brandt argues the trial court erred in failing to limit Respondent law firm's award to those...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT