140 A.3d 124
R.I.2016Background
- Sisto, a condominium owner, sought CRMC approval in 2006 to expand his unit; defendants (condominium association and board members) objected, leading CRMC to deny Sisto’s application.
- Sisto sued in Superior Court (slander of title, breach of contract, declaratory relief); defendants moved under Rhode Island’s anti‑SLAPP statute, § 9‑33‑2, claiming immunity for communications to CRMC.
- The Superior Court granted partial summary judgment for defendants and awarded $9,685.31 in attorney’s fees under the anti‑SLAPP statute; this Court affirmed on the anti‑SLAPP issue in Sisto v. America Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 68 A.3d 603 (R.I.2013).
- Defendants later sought appellate attorney’s fees incurred defending that anti‑SLAPP judgment on appeal (initially $152,122.55, later amended to $29,748.65); the Superior Court, after in camera review and large adjustments, awarded $8,924.60.
- Sisto appealed, arguing the Superior Court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction to award appellate fees (mandate rule/res judicata) and that the fee award was unreasonable given inadequate billing detail; the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Superior Court could award appellate fees after this Court’s mandate | Sisto: mandate did not direct awarding fees; remand did not authorize further relief | Defendants: mandate was silent on fees; Superior Court retains authority to determine and assess fees, including appellate fees | Court: mandate silence left fee determination to Superior Court; award was proper |
| Whether res judicata or lack of explicit fee request barred fee motion | Sisto: doctrine or procedural defects barred reconsideration; defendants didn’t request fees on appeal | Sisto: defendants: original action remained pending and statute mandates fees; no procedural bar | Court: res judicata inapplicable (no second cause of action); Superior Court could entertain motion; failure to request fees in this Court not fatal |
| Whether award was reasonable given billing records | Sisto: records were inadequate, not segregated by issue, possibly duplicative — award was arbitrary | Defendants: prevailing party entitled to reasonable fees for defense of judgment on appeal; submitted invoices and affidavit | Court: reviewed record for abuse of discretion; trial justice permissibly reduced requested amount by 75% then adjusted upward 5% given complexity, producing $8,924.60; not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether payment by insurer or lack of independent fee affidavit defeats recovery | Sisto: defendants didn’t actually pay fees; affidavit by interested counsel insufficient | Defendants: no rule requires out‑of‑pocket payment; affidavit not challenged here | Court: insurance payment irrelevant; while independent expert proof is preferred, absence of such proof here did not render award an abuse of discretion (but future requests must have better documentation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Alves v. Hometown Newspapers, Inc., 857 A.2d 743 (R.I. 2004) (anti‑SLAPP prevailing party is entitled to mandatory costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees)
- Karousos v. Pardee, 992 A.2d 263 (R.I. 2010) (statutory fees may include amounts incurred defending the judgment on appeal)
- Perkins v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 399 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1970) (trial court may act on matters left open by appellate mandate and determine ancillary relief)
- Keystone Elevator Co. v. Johnson & Wales Univ., 850 A.2d 912 (R.I. 2004) (trial judge is best positioned to assess fee requests and counsel performance)
- Codex Corp. v. Milgo Elec. Corp., 717 F.2d 622 (1st Cir. 1983) (district court may reduce fee award where submissions are inadequate)
- Role Models America, Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (allowing reduction of requested fees for inadequate documentation and improper entries)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method: reasonable hours times reasonable rate is the starting point)
- Colonial Plumbing & Heating Supply Co. v. Contemporary Constr. Co., 464 A.2d 741 (R.I. 1983) (requirement of affidavits or expert testimony to support fee awards)
- Tri‑Town Constr. Co. v. Commerce Park Assocs. 12, LLC, 139 A.3d 467 (R.I. 2016) (expert affidavits supporting fee requests should be from independent counsel; cautions about interested‑party submissions)