Brandt v. Gooding, Memorandum Opinion No. 2010-MO-010 (S.C. App. 4/12/2010)

• Decision Date: 12 April 2010
• Docket Number: Memorandum Opinion No. 2010-MO-010.
• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Parties: Donald 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.

Page 1

Donald 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.

Memorandum Opinion No. 2010-MO-010.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard January 7, 2010.

Filed April 12, 2010.

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

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART

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 & 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.

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 & 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...