Petterman v. Haverhill Farms, Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 July 1983
• Docket Number: Docket No. 60710
• Citation: 125 Mich.App. 30,335 N.W.2d 710
• Parties: Barbara PETTERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAVERHILL FARMS, INC., Roger Turner, and Young Men's Christian Association, Farmington Branch, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 710

335 N.W.2d 710

125 Mich.App. 30

Barbara PETTERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAVERHILL FARMS, INC., Roger Turner, and Young Men's Christian Association, Farmington Branch, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 60710.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Jan. 9, 1983.

Decided April 18, 1983.

Released for Publication July 6, 1983.

Zeff & Zeff by Thomas F. Campbell and Michael T. Materna, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jenkins, Nystrom, Hitchcock, Parfitt & Nystrom, P.C. by Janis B. De Gennaro, Southfield, for defendants-appellees.

Before T.M. BURNS, P.J., and MAHER and HOOD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court ordered plaintiff to pay defendants' attorney fees pursuant to GCR 1963, 316.7. Plaintiff appeals as of right the amount of the fees assessed.

Plaintiff was injured in a horseback riding accident at defendant Haverhill Farms after defendant Roger Turner, the instructor of her class, told her to jump from a runaway horse. A mediation panel recommended that defendants pay plaintiff damages in the amount of $12,500, a figure all parties rejected. During trial, defendant YMCA settled with plaintiff and was dismissed from the case. The remaining defendants, however, continued to directed verdicts in their favor. Defendants requested $9,304 in attorney fees pursuant to GCR 1963, 316.7, which the trial court granted, finding defendants' attorney's itemized bill of costs to be "prima facie accurate".

While GCR 1963, 316.7 allows the payment of attorney fees where all parties reject the mediation panel's evaluation and the ultimate damages awarded are more than 10% below the panel's recommendation, the fees must be reasonable as determined by the trial judge. GCR 1963, 316.8. An award of attorney fees will be upheld by this Court absent an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Superior Products v. Merucci Brothers, Inc., 107 Mich.App. 153, 309 N.W.2d 188 (1981); Sturgis Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Italian Village, Inc., 81 Mich.App. 577, 265 N.W.2d 755 (1978). The court must make findings of fact on the issue. Sturgis, supra; Desender v. DeMeulenaere, 12 Mich.App. 634, 163 N.W.2d 464 (1968).

In Crawley v. Schick, 48 Mich.App. 728, 211 N.W.2d 217 (1973), this Court established several factors which should be considered by the trial court when considering the reasonableness of attorney fees: (1) the professional standing and experience of the attorney; (2) the skill, time, and labor involved; (3) the amount in question and the results achieved; (4) the difficulty of the case; (5) the expenses incurred; and (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. These guidelines were adopted by the Supreme Court recently in Wood v. DAIIE, 413 Mich. 573, 321 N.W.2d 653 (1982).

In the present case, the trial court considered none of these factors on the record. It made no findings of fact. Instead, it found the bill of costs to be "prima facie accurate". But even a superficial application of the Crawley factors raises questions as to the reasonableness of the attorney fees award: the $9,304 fee was charged for a claim evaluated at $12,500; the questionable difficulty of the case; and the appropriateness of the time allocated to various tasks listed on the bill of costs.

The itemized bill in itself was not sufficient to establish the reasonableness of the fee, nor was the trial judge required to accept it on its face. See Sturgis, supra, 81 Mich.App. at p. 584, 265 N.W.2d 755. The burden of proving fees rests upon the claimant of those fees. See In re Eddy Estate, 354 Mich. 334, 348, 92 N.W.2d 458 (1958). When plaintiff challenged the reasonableness of the fee requested, the trial court should have inquired into the services actually rendered by the attorney before approving the bill of costs. Letters and interrogatories could have been examined, actual time of trial and motions...