C.I.T. Corp. v. Nelson
Decision Date | 21 September 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 84-7310,84-7310 |
Citation | 743 F.2d 774 |
Parties | C.I.T. CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia A. NELSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
John R. Chiles, Birmingham, Ala., for defendant-appellant.
Gilbert E. Johnston, Jr., Ralph H. Smith, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RONEY and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
CIT Corporation (CIT) filed this civil action against Patricia A. Nelson (Nelson) seeking to collect a deficiency arising from a conditional sales contract executed by Nelson's ex-husband and guaranteed by Nelson. The guaranty agreement provided, in part, for the payment for "all losses, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses" which may be suffered by consequence of default. The district court entered an order on February 21, 1984 granting summary judgment in favor of CIT and against Nelson in the amount of $114,773. The court further ordered CIT to submit affidavits requesting attorneys' fees within ten days and Nelson to submit counteraffidavits within seven days thereafter. On March 16, 1984, the court ordered Nelson to pay CIT an additional $8,232 for attorneys' fees. Nelson filed a timely motion for new trial or vacation of judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 and 60. The court denied the motion on April 2, 1984. Nelson filed a notice of appeal on May 1, 1984.
CIT moves to dismiss the appeal as untimely, because it was filed more than 30 days after the February 21, 1984 judgment of the district court. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). The issue for decision, therefore, is whether an order resolving all contractual issues except attorneys' fees is final, therefore requiring immediate appeal.
The finality of an order, which determines all the issues except for the award of attorneys' fees "depends on the circumstances of each case." 1 McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984). The McQurter court adopted the following analysis:
When attorney's fees are similar to costs ... or collateral to an action ... a lack of determination as to the amount does not preclude the issuance of a final appealable judgment on the merits. When, however, the attorney's fees are an integral part of the merits of the case and the scope of relief, they cannot be characterized as costs or as collateral and their determination is a part of any final, appealable judgment.
This distinction accords with the court's analysis in White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445, 451, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 1166, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982). There, the court focused on whether the attorneys' fees were "compensation for the injury giving rise to an action." Id. at 452, 102 S.Ct. at 1166.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Exchange Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Daniels, s. 84-2037
...would be far too uncertain. We recognize that several courts have answered this question the other way. For example, C.I.T. Corp. v. Nelson, 743 F.2d 774 (11th Cir.1984), holds that an appeal from an order awarding fees brings up the whole case when the fees are provided by contract rather ......
-
Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Industries, Inc., s. 85-8165
..." a motion for the inclusion of attorney's fees is a Rule 59(e) motion and tolls the time period for appeal. C.I.T. Corp. v. Nelson, 743 F.2d 774, 775 (11th Cir.1984) (quoting White, 455 U.S. at 452, 102 S.Ct. at 1166-67); accord Beckwith Machinery Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 815 F.2d 2......
-
Beckwith Machinery Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 86-3481
...Underwriters at Lloyds of London, England v. Jet Charter Service, Inc., 739 F.2d 534, 535 (11th Cir.1984); C.I.T. Corporation v. Nelson, 743 F.2d 774, 775 (11th Cir.1984). Although the Second, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits have chosen this case-by-case approach, other circuits have declined ......
-
Ierna v. Arthur Murray Intern., Inc., 86-5804
...all issues in a case except an award for attorneys' fees is final and appealable depends on the circumstances. 3 C.I.T. Corp. v. Nelson, 743 F.2d 774, 775 (11th Cir.1984); McQurter v. City of Atlanta, 724 F.2d 881, 882 (11th Cir.1984) (citing Holmes v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 682 F.2d 1143,......