O'Donnell v. McGee Trucks, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 43067--43069,s. 43067--43069 |
| Citation | 199 N.W.2d 432,294 Minn. 110 |
| Parties | John C. O'DONNELL, a.k.a. J. C. O'Donnell, et al., Respondents, v. McGEE TRUCKS, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where a default judgment has been granted in a collection case, reasonable factors to be considered by the trial court in determination of attorneys' fees include the size of the principal amounts involved, the solvency of the debtor, the difficulty of collection, and anticipated future legal services to be performed.
Dorfman & Rudquist, Leo Dorfman, and R. W. DuFour, Jr., Minneapolis, for appellant.
Stringer, Donnelly, Allen & Sharood, A. James Dickinson, and Vincent P. Courtney, St. Paul, for respondents.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and KELLY, TODD, and MacLAUGHLIN, JJ.
These appeals by defendant result from orders of the trial court granting attorneys' fees to plaintiffs in the aggregate sum of $11,550. The parties have stipulated that the appeals may be consolidated for purposes of decision in this court.
Defendant signed four promissory notes in the aggregate amount of $139,650. Each note contained a provision permitting the holder, upon default and after 30 days' written notice, to accelerate the payment of the principal balance. Moreover, each note also contained a provision whereby, should the institution of legal proceedings prove necessary to collect the debt, defendant agreed 'to pay the reasonable costs of such collection including attorney's fees.' Defendant defaulted in its payments to plaintiffs, and these actions were commenced to collect the amount then due and owing on the notes. Defendant did not interpose an answer to any of the actions, and each case was heard as a default matter by the trial court. Default judgments were entered against defendant in the principal amount of $78,200, plus interest, and in the amount of $11,550 as reasonable attorneys' fees.
When defendant learned of the amounts allowed by the trial court for attorneys' fees, it made a motion in each case for amended findings or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The motions were denied, and this appeal is taken in each case from that part of the order denying a motion for a new trial and from that part of the judgment granting plaintiff the attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs contend that the procedure used by defendant in bringing this matter before the trial court was improper. Because of the disposition we make in this case, we need not discuss or decide the procedural issue raised by plaintiffs.
The issue before us is whether plaintiffs presented adequate evidence to support the attorneys' fees awarded by the trial court, and whether the attorneys' fees awarded were reasonable under the circumstances.
Defendant contends that at the default hearing the sole proof as to the reasonable value of the attorneys' fees was testimony of the attorney for plaintiffs that the Hennepin County Bar Association Minimum Fee Schedule suggests 15 percent of the amount collected in excess of $1,000 as the recommended fee in collection cases of this type. Defendant vigorously contends that this evidence is insufficient to support the conclusions of the trial court. The record does confirm that evidence of the Hennepin County Bar Association Minimum Fee Schedule was received by the trial court and that the fees allowed closely approximate those recommended by the fee schedule. 1
There is no question that each contract between the parties, i.e., the note, authorized the awarding of reasonable attorneys' fees to plaintiffs. While the claim of defendant as to the proof presented is not entirely unfounded, it is clear that the trial court took other matters into consideration in determining the attorneys' fees. In addition to the obvious fact that plaintiffs' attorney will be required to perform services in the future in an attempt to collect the principal sum of $78,200, there was evidence that defendant had estimated debts 'just in excess of $2,000,000' and that a part of the inventory of defendant was to be sold to General Motors for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vandeputte v. Soderholm
...251 Minn. 477, 494, 88 N.W.2d 871, 883 (1958); see, Obraske v. Woody, 294 Minn. 105, 199 N.W.2d 429 (1972); O'Donnell v. McGee Trucks, Inc., 294 Minn. 110, 199 N.W.2d 432 (1972). In the Obraske case, we stated the following concerning the trial court's setting of attorneys' 'A large fee is ......
-
Kittler and Hedelson v. Sheehan Properties, Inc.
...of collection; (11) the anticipation of future services; and (12) the preclusion of other employment. O'Donnell v. McGee Trucks, Inc., 294 Minn. 110, 199 N.W.2d 432 (1972); State, by Head, v. Paulson, 290 Minn. 371, 188 N.W.2d 424 (1971); In re Living Trust Created by Atwood, 227 Minn. 495,......
-
Valley Rich Co. v. Holmes Park Village Apt.
... ... Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000) ... Valley Rich Co., Inc., Respondent, ... Holmes Park Village Apartments, et al., Appellants, ... ...
-
State Bank of Cokato v. Ziehwein, C3-93-1160
...collection, however, Minnesota courts will enforce the provision as long as the fees are reasonable. O'Donnell v. McGee Trucks, Inc., 294 Minn. 110, 113, 199 N.W.2d 432, 434-35 (1972). Here, the loan agreement expressly allows the bank to recover from Ziehwein any reasonable attorney fees t......