Carter v. Cline
2013 Ark. 398
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Carter appeals the circuit court's attorney’s fees award against Ernie and Karen Cline following a real estate dispute.
- This court's Carter I decision held there was no contract due to an unmet financing condition, negating a breach claim.
- On remand, the Clines’ breach and Carter’s third-party negligence claim were dismissed with prejudice.
- Carter sought $219,576.68 in fees, asserting entitlement under contract paragraph 29 and §16-22-308; Clines argued no contract and §16-22-308 inapplicable to torts.
- The circuit court initially awarded $52,416.56, then revised to $42,104.06, excluding amounts tied to third-party/James H. Carter work.
- This appeal challenges (1) contract-based fees, (2) third-party and James H. Carter fees, and (3) the reduction calculation; the Supreme Court affirms on all points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carter I precludes contract-based fees | Carter contends contract provisions survive despite no contract. | Clines argue no contract exists, so paragraph 29 cannot authorize fees. | Law-of-the-case forecloses contract-based recovery. |
| Whether §16-22-308 covers third-party fee recovery in a breach case | Carter asserts entitlement for third-party fees under §16-22-308. | §16-22-308 does not apply to tort claims like third-party negligence. | Third-party fees denied; statute does not cover tort actions. |
| Whether James H. Carter's pre- and post-pro hac vice work is recoverable | All James H. Carter work was reasonable and necessary. | Work was duplicative and unnecessary, justifying reductions. | Court did not abuse discretion in denying $38,959.25 for James H. Carter. |
| Whether the final fee reduction was proper and adequately explained | Reduction lacks explanation or calculation. | No error; standard of review supports reduction. | affirmed the reduction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Cline, 2011 Ark. 474 (Ark. 2011) (no contract where financing condition unmet; law-of-the-case control)
- Griffen v. First Nat’l Bank of Crossett, 318 Ark. 848 (Ark. 1994) (American rule for attorney’s fees; standard review)
- Damron v. Univ. Estates, Phase II, Inc., 295 Ark. 533 (Ark. 1988) (attorney’s fees generally governed by contract or statute)
- Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Kosin, 2011 Ark. 51 (Ark. 2011) (trial court’s discretion on attorney’s fees reviewed for abuse)
- Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Morgan, 312 Ark. 225 (Ark. 1993) (§16-22-308 does not apply to tort actions)
- Stein v. Lukas, 308 Ark. 74 (Ark. 1992) (limits on fee recoveries under §16-22-308)
- Liles v. Liles, 289 Ark. 159 (Ark. 1986) (compensation for third-party actions; preservation required)
- Security Pac. Housing Co. v. Friddle, 315 Ark. 178 (Ark. 1993) (factors guiding attorney’s fee awards)
- Wheeler Motor Co. v. Roth, 315 Ark. 318 (Ark. 1993) (fee award considerations)