270 A.3d 612
R.I.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (America Condo Assoc., Capella South) sued the Trust over Unit 18’s expansion alleging violations of the Condominium Act, breach of the Goat Island South Second Amended and Restated Declaration of Condominium (GIS SAR §11.3), restrictive covenants, and trespass.
- Superior Court (Feb 25, 2014) found for plaintiffs on most counts but denied attorneys’ fees; plaintiffs appealed.
- Rhode Island Supreme Court in America Condo I held §11.3 of the GIS SAR required an award of attorneys’ fees and remanded for calculation of reasonable fees.
- On remand plaintiffs sought large fees for the underlying case and “fees on fees”; after a multi‑day hearing the trial justice limited recoverable fees to those directly tied to enforcing the GIS SAR, scrutinized invoices, disallowed certain items, and awarded $5,862 (fees) + $1,805.33 (costs) for the underlying action and $17,805 for fees‑on‑fees (total $25,472.33).
- Plaintiffs appealed the limited scope and some disallowances; the Trust cross‑appealed contending fees‑on‑fees were waived and not authorized by the GIS SAR and that it had been denied needed discovery.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed: it held the mandate confined recoverable fees to enforcement of the GIS SAR, found §11.3 unambiguous (allowing fees‑on‑fees), and concluded the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in quantifying and discounting fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of recoverable fees on remand | All fees/costs “all court costs and attorney’s fees” in §11.3 covers fees for all claims or, alternatively, intertwined claims so should be broader | Mandate and §11.3 limit recovery to fees incurred enforcing the GIS SAR; trial court should follow remand | Affirmed trial court: mandate restricted fees to those enforcing GIS SAR; trial justice properly limited award to invoice entries tied to that claim |
| Recoverability of fees‑on‑fees | Fees incurred enforcing the fee award are part of “all court costs and attorney’s fees” in §11.3 | Fees‑on‑fees were waived / GIS SAR does not expressly authorize them; Trust was prejudiced by late production | §11.3 unambiguous; “all” includes fees‑on‑fees; court declines to find waiver given notice and addresses merits; fees‑on‑fees permitted |
| Amount and calculation of fees (reasonableness) | Trial court undervalued fees; expert said claims were intertwined so more hours reasonable | Invoices and expert testimony had discrepancies; plaintiffs bore burden to prove hours/reasonableness | No abuse of discretion: trial justice credited rates, excluded unsupported or unrelated entries, discounted block billing and expert deficiencies, and reasonably reduced award |
| Post‑judgment (prejudgment) interest request | Plaintiffs seek interest from original 2014 judgment date | Trust: fee amounts were not fixed until 2019; interest not available | Denied: fees and reasonable sums were not determined until final fee judgment (2019), so prejudgment interest under §9‑21‑10(a) not available |
Key Cases Cited
- America Condominium Association, Inc. v. Stefania M. Mardo, 140 A.3d 106 (R.I. 2016) (held GIS SAR §11.3 authorized attorneys’ fees and remanded for fee valuation)
- Sisto v. America Condominium Association, Inc., 140 A.3d 124 (R.I. 2016) (discusses mandate rule and limits on remand relief)
- Tri‑Town Construction Co., Inc. v. Commerce Park Associates 12, LLC, 139 A.3d 467 (R.I. 2016) (American rule and proof required to obtain contractual fees)
- Thomas & Betts Corp. v. New Albertson’s, Inc., 915 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2019) (party seeking fees bears burden to produce necessary fee evidence)
- In re Schiff, 684 A.2d 1126 (R.I. 1996) (lodestar approach and documentation standards for fee awards)
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island v. Najarian, 911 A.2d 706 (R.I. 2006) (fee awards rest within trial justice’s sound discretion)