The Alabama Supreme Court left a default judgment intact because the defendant offered no fact-supported meritorious defense, but reversed a contingency-based attorney-fee award lacking Peebles findings.
The Nevada Supreme Court held that NRS 7.095 capped contingency fees on a medical-negligence settlement and clarified when counsel must perfect an attorney lien.
The Utah Supreme Court held that a contingency fee sought as consequential damages must be disclosed under rule 26 and proved at trial, not first revealed in a posttrial fee motion.
The Superior Court vacated an estate-account decree because the orphans’ court presumed attorney and executor fees reasonable based solely on local guidelines and shifted the burden to the objectors.
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed an expert exclusion and attorney fees denial in a high-asset divorce arising from a California-law premarital agreement, holding that a technically deficient expert disclosure was harmless where the disclosing party promptly provided a full report and offered deposition access, and that a premarital agreement’s separate-property clause cannot waive a spouse’s right to attorney fees under Utah Code § 81-1-203(1).
The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed MCRA and defamation verdicts against neighboring property owners who mounted a campaign of threats and false statements against a cannabis retailer’s permit and property rights, holding that the absolute litigation privilege did not shield demands and defamatory statements made in private meetings and community settings unrelated to the defendants’ pending Land Court lawsuits. The civil conspiracy judgment was reversed because the underlying “extortion” theory was tied to a c. 93A claim on which the defendants had prevailed; extortion is not a freestanding civil tort in Massachusetts. The $178,743.25 MCRA attorney’s fee award was affirmed as timely and reasonable; fee petitions under civil rights statutes are not subject to the Rule 59(e) deadline and need not be proportionate to damages.
The Nevada Supreme Court, en banc, overruled Capriati Construction Corp. v. Yahyavi and held that NRCP 68 attorney fee awards in contingency cases must reflect only the value of work performed after the offer of judgment was served — not the entire contingency fee — because fees are incurred as work is performed, not at the time of judgment. The court reversed an $818,047 award covering a 40 percent contingency fee in a case where the offer was served just 24 days before trial, four years into litigation.
The Nevada Supreme Court reversed a 43 percent markup on an attorney fee award under NRS 22.100(3), holding that for a paying client with private counsel at a freely negotiated hourly rate, the billed rate presumptively establishes the market rate for lodestar calculations. A district court may award a higher rate only when the applicant demonstrates the firm discounted its rates for pro bono or public-interest representation — a finding that the firm “could have charged more” is insufficient.
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed denial of dismissal of claims against a real estate LLC’s managing member personally for unpaid legal fees of approximately $650,000, finding the allegations of personal assurances, direct billing instructions, and a phantom entity sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
The Third DCA affirmed the award of contractual attorney’s fees to a prevailing counterclaimant under section 57.105(7)’s reciprocity provision, including fees for defending against a prejudgment writ of garnishment, but reversed the application of a 1.5 contingency risk multiplier as unsupported by competent substantial evidence.
The Third DCA reversed a final judgment in a partition action that assigned all attorney’s fees to one co-tenant, holding that section 64.081 requires fees to be apportioned between parties in proportion to their interests in the partitioned property.
The Fourth DCA reversed the denial of an attorney’s petition for fees under section 744.108(1), holding that the statute is not limited to attorneys who represent the ward but extends to attorneys who render services that benefit the ward, including those who petition for appointment of an emergency temporary guardian.
The Fourth DCA held that a proposal for settlement served under section 768.79 was ineffective where the parties’ contract contained a New York choice-of-law provision that had not yet been waived at the time the proposal was served, even though the offeree later waived the provision.
The Eighth District affirmed summary judgment in favor of Reminger Co. in a breach-of-contract action to collect unpaid legal fees, holding that the pro se defendant’s failure to comply with appellate briefing rules and support his assignments of error with argument and authority was fatal.
The Fourth DCA holds that a pre-judgment denial of attorney’s fees merges into the final judgment and must be challenged in the initial appeal—failure to do so permanently waives the issue.
Connecticut Appellate Court reverses a trial court’s award of attorney’s fees under the quiet title statute, holding that § 47-31(e) authorizes only statutory costs—not counsel fees—in favor of a disclaiming defendant, consistent with the American rule.
The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed a $281,000 attorney fee award against a minority LLC member who pursued a derivative action without reading the operating agreement, but vacated fees awarded to individual defendants because the trial court failed to distinguish between frivolous and meritorious claims.
The Ninth District affirmed most aspects of a divorce decree but reversed the trial court’s property-division offset, finding that the court improperly double-counted certain expenses and failed to credit the husband for overpayments made under the temporary orders.
The Second District affirmed summary judgment for an equipment rental company on breach of contract and upheld an award of attorney fees, holding that an equipment rental agreement is not a ‘contract of indebtedness’ under R.C. 1319.02.
The Ninth District affirmed sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 against homebuyers and their attorney for filing a frivolous motion to vacate an arbitration award using a ‘manifest disregard of the law’ standard that Ohio no longer recognizes.