Baaron, Inc. v. Davidson, 2017 Ohio 7783

Baaron, Inc. (TDP Contracting) appealed a trial-court award of attorney fees to Norma Davidson after this Court previously remanded for the trial court to explain its basis for the fee award.
Parties agreed the trial court should decide fees on the evidence presented at a September 2013 fee hearing.
Davidson submitted: (1) an undetailed bill from her original attorney for $3,049.04, (2) a fee agreement showing her second attorney’s $125 hourly rate, and (3) an itemized hours report from the second attorney totaling 77.3 hours; Davidson (a lay witness) testified the amounts were reasonable.
The trial court found the second attorney’s hourly rate reasonable, multiplied 77.3 hours by $125, and awarded $9,662.50 in fees; it awarded nothing for the original attorney’s work.
Baaron challenged the fee award as arbitrary and unsupported; this Court reviewed whether the trial court followed Ohio law on proving reasonable attorney fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly awarded attorney fees to Davidson	Davidson relied on the second attorney’s itemized hours and fee agreement and her testimony that fees were reasonable	Baaron argued the award was arbitrary and unsupported because there was insufficient proof of reasonableness (hours and rate)	Reversed: trial court abused its discretion because it failed to make the required factual finding on reasonable hours and the record lacked sufficient evidence (client testimony insufficient)

Bittner v. Tri–County Toyota, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 143 (trial court must determine reasonable hours and rate; starting point is hours × rate)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (hours reasonably expended × reasonable hourly rate is the starting point for fee calculation)
Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161 (appellate court may not substitute its judgment for trial court on discretionary matters)