Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Parker Pest Control, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 February 1987
• Docket Number: No. 63826,63826
• Citation: 737 P.2d 1186,1987 OK 16
• Parties: SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a Missouri corporation, Appellee, v. PARKER PEST CONTROL, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, Appellant.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 1186

737 P.2d 1186

1987 OK 16

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a Missouri corporation, Appellee, v. PARKER PEST CONTROL, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, Appellant.

No. 63826.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb. 17, 1987.

As Corrected Feb. 23, 1987.

James M. Reed, Owens & McGill, Inc., Tulsa, for appellee.

Charles A. Johnson, Ponca City, for appellant.

SUMMERS, Justice.

The telephone company sued for $3867.00, the unpaid balance on a yellow pages advertising contract. The pest control company defended on the basis that it had paid for all that the services were worth, and that the phone company had so misrepresented the business benefits of the advertising that it amounted to fraud. Just before trial defendant, pursuant to 12 O.S.1981 § 1101, offered to confess judgment in the sum of $1500.00. Plaintiff accepted the offer, leaving only the question of attorney fees unresolved. The trial court awarded the plaintiff telephone company a $5000.00 counsel fee and defendant appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that no attorney's fee should have been awarded.

We have granted certiorari and now must address two questions:

(1) Are attorney's fees recoverable in a suit on an unpaid yellow pages advertising account?

(2) If so, can the fee set herein be upheld as reasonable?

We answer in the affirmative as to the first, in the negative as to the second.

In Wieland v. Danner Auto Supply, Inc., 695 P.2d 1332 (Okl.1984), we held that a plaintiff recovering a judgment by confession (under 12 O.S.1981 § 1101, as in this case) was a prevailing party the same as if judgment had been entered after a trial on the merits. See also Dulan v. Johnston, 687 P.2d 1045 (Okl.1984). Wieland, supra, ordered an attorney's fee for the prevailing plaintiff under 12 O.S.1981 §§ 936, 939, even though the defendant confessed the judgment.

In this case all agree that the written contract was silent on attorney fees, and that if plaintiff is to recover a fee it must be based on 12 O.S.1981 § 936, which is as follows:

"In any civil action to recover on an open account, a statement of account, account stated, note, bill, negotiable instrument, or contract relating to the purchase or sale of goods, wares, or merchandise, or for labor or services, unless otherwise provided by law or the contract which is the subject to the action, the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney fee to be set by the court, to be taxed and collected as costs."

Defendant pest control company asserts that yellow page advertising is not a service, citing The Classified Directory Subscribers Association et al v. Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia, 274 F.Supp. 261 (D.C. Columbia 1966). We find the opinion less than persuasive. The issue there was whether such advertising rates were for the type of services designed to be regulated by the Public Service Commission, along with the rates for utilities, etc. The court ruled they were not. Our issue, however, must be resolved by examining the language of the unambiguous attorneys' fee statute in its plain and ordinary meaning. Alfalfa Elec. Co. Op. Inc. v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Okla. City, 525 P.2d 644 (Okl.1974); W.S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson Inv. Co., 388 P.2d 300 (Okl.1963).

The Court of Appeals in reversing the fee award relied on Russell v. Flanagan, 544 P.2d 510 (Okl.1975) which held that a suit for breach of warranty, though "collaterally concerning labor or services" was "not a civil action for labor or services within the meaning of ... § 936". Id. at 512. We find this reliance to be misplaced, and refer to our language clarifying Russell v. Flanagan, supra, in Burrows Construction Co. v. Independent School District No. 2, Stephens Co., 704 P.2d 1136, 1138 (Okl.1985):

"It is the underlying nature of the suit itself which determines the applicability of the labor and services provisions of § 936. If the action is brought for labor and services rendered, the provisions of § 936 apply. If the nature of the suit is for damages arising from the breach of an agreement relating to labor and services the provisions of this section do not necessarily apply. The question is whether the damages arose directly from the rendition of labor or services, such as a failure to pay for those services, or from an aspect collaterally relating to labor and services, such as loss of profits on a contract involving the rendition of labor and services." (emphasis ours).

By 68 O.S.1981 § 1351 Oklahoma imposes a sales tax on all "services" not otherwise exempt. Specifically, advertising is so taxed under 68 O.S.1981 § 1354(J), unless it is of the type otherwise exempted.

Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary defines "service" as:

4: The act of serving, as

a: a helpful act (did him a service)

b: useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity--usually used in plural (charge for professional services).

No argument is advanced that tends to convince us advertising is not a service. By this opinion we hold that it is. Nor is this a case arising from "an aspect collaterally relating to labor and service," as in Russell. It is simply a suit based on failure to pay for the service rendered, namely advertising. Our ruling in Burrows mandates that the opinion of the Court of Appeals be vacated and the telephone company allowed an attorneys' fee pursuant to § 936.

The question then becomes whether the award of $5000.00 is reasonable in light of the amount sued for and recovered. The telephone company's evidence submitted in support of its application for fee shows 113.25 hours performed by five attorneys at rates ranging from $50.00 to $90.00 per hour for a total fee claimed of $6585.00.

In Wieland, supra, we held that a plaintiff recovering a confessed judgment under 12 O.S.1981 § 1101 is entitled to a reasonable attorneys fee for services "accruing up to and including the date defendant's offer to confess judgment was received." Id at P. 1334. That date in the instant case was September 12, 1984. Plaintiff's time records admitted in evidence disclose that 32.0 hours of the attorneys' time billed and claimed were performed after that date. The fee allowed, even as reduced by the trial court, thus goes beyond that authorized in Wieland.

Defendant urges that a $5000.00 fee is patently excessive for a $3867.00 lawsuit ultimately settled for $1500.00. He assails the doctrine enunciated in State ex rel. Burk v. Oklahoma City, 598 P.2d 659 (Okl.1979) as necessarily imposing excessive attorneys' fees in cases such as this. In Burk we mandated that the trial court first determine hourly compensation by multiplying hours times rate, and then adding to that an amount based on the following guidelines:

"1. Time and labor required.

2. The novelty and difficulty of the questions.

3. The skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.

4. The preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case.

5. The customary fee.

6. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

7. Time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances.

8. The amount involved and the results obtained.

9. The experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys.

10. The 'undesirability' of the case.

11. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.

12. Awards in similar cases." ¹

Several observations are in order.

First, the Burk directives were expressly given to be used "in this type of case." Burk, at P. 661. That case involved an "equitable fund" created for the victorious party through the efforts of its attorneys. We then evaluated cases from other jurisdictions in determining the standards used in fixing a fee to be charged against the "equitable fund." Since that time this court has not limited the standards set out in Burk for determining the amount of a fee to cases involving an "equitable fund", and has applied them generally where attorney fees are otherwise recoverable against the opposing party. See, for example, Professional Construction Consultants, Inc. v. State, 646 P.2d 1262 (Okl.1982) (fee allowed pursuant to 12 O.S.1981 § 936); Matter of Estate of Bartlett, 680 P.2d 369 (Okl.1984) (fee for representing an administrator in probate); Briscoe v. Harper Oil Co., 702 P.2d 33 (Okl.1985) (damages to real property). We have not, however, eliminated the Burk mandated "amount involved" as a factor to be considered. See, for example, Catlin Aviation v. Equilease Corporation, 626 P.2d 857 (Okl.1981), holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a $600.00 attorney's fee to go with an $1167.00 judgment, notwithstanding that plaintiff's attorney had more than 100 hours in the case.

Second, in Oliver's Sports Center v. Nat. Standard Ins., 615 P.2d 291 (Okl.1980) an attorneys' fee of $60,000.00 was challenged in a case where plaintiff recovered $160,000.00 on an insurance policy plus $20,000.00 compensatory damages for bad faith in failing to settle. The attorneys' fee, authorized by statute in such cases, was affirmed on appeal, as being consistent with Burk, supra. In Oliver's Sports, however, we said:

"The general agreement in all jurisdictions is that the time and labor spent by the attorney in performing services for which compensation is sought is an important factor to be considered in setting a reasonable fee. However, it is also commonly agreed that the time element must be considered in connection with other factors. Fees cannot fairly be awarded on the basis of time alone. The use of time as the sole criterion is of dubious value because economy of time could cease to be a virtue; and inexperience, inefficiency, and incompetence may be rewarded to the detriment of expeditious disposition of litigation." (P. 294)

Other courts have considered the problem of excessive attorneys' fees due to the overworking of a case. In Travieso v. Travieso, 447 So.2d 940, 944 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984), the court...