Chimneyhill Condominium Association v. King Chow
W2020-00873-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2021Background
- Chimneyhill Condominium Association sued King Chow in general sessions court for delinquent HOA dues, late charges, attorney’s fees, and assessments; the general sessions court awarded Chimneyhill $10,218.25.
- Chow appealed to the Shelby County Circuit Court; Chimneyhill did not appeal but filed an amended complaint in circuit court adding unjust enrichment and a claim that Chow made unauthorized roof repairs in violation of the Master Deed and seeking attorney’s fees under the Master Deed.
- Chimneyhill moved for partial summary judgment seeking attorney’s fees for work in both general sessions and circuit court; affidavits claimed roughly $31,000–$36,000 in fees and ~$3,700 in discretionary costs.
- While the fee motion was pending, Chow filed a notice dismissing his appeal and asking the circuit court to affirm the general sessions judgment; the circuit court nonetheless granted Chimneyhill partial summary judgment for attorney’s fees and awarded discretionary costs, then remanded to reinstate the general sessions judgment.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals exercised Rule 2 discretion to hear the matter despite an improvident Rule 54.02 certification, held that Crowley controls, reversed the award of attorney’s fees, and affirmed the award of discretionary costs (finding Chow had waived objections to costs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court could proceed and award attorney’s fees after Chow dismissed his appeal | Chimneyhill: Master Deed’s fee clause entitles Association to fees in any proceeding arising from an alleged default; it need not be the prevailing party | Chow: Statutes and Crowley require that if appellant dismisses appeal, circuit court must affirm GS judgment and cannot grant new relief | Held: Reversed fee award. Under Crowley and pre-2018 statute, dismissal of the appellant’s appeal required affirmance and barred additional recovery beyond GS judgment |
| Whether the circuit court’s order was final/appealable under Rule 54.02 | Chimneyhill: Fee claim is distinct and certifiable; Rule 54.02 certification was proper | Chow: Order was not properly certified; dismissal required immediate affirmance | Held: Certification was improvident (fee request was not a distinct separable claim); Court nevertheless exercised Rule 2 to decide the controlling legal issue |
| Whether Chimneyhill could recover attorney’s fees incurred in general sessions and circuit court under the Master Deed absent prevailing on all claims | Chimneyhill: Master Deed allows recovery in any proceeding for alleged default; it sought enforcement of contract language | Chow: Award impermissible because dismissal foreclosed awarding additional damages/fees beyond GS judgment | Held: Fee award reversed; plaintiff cannot recover those additional attorney’s fees after appellant dismissed appeal under controlling law |
| Whether discretionary costs could be awarded where movant’s request/documentation was limited and defense objected | Chimneyhill: Sought discretionary costs and submitted affidavit detailing ~$3,728.28 in reporter/subpoena/bookkeeper time | Chow: Argued movant never properly moved or documented costs | Held: Award of discretionary costs affirmed; Chow waived trial-court objections and statute authorizes costs on dismissal of appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowley v. Thomas, 343 S.W.3d 32 (Tenn. 2011) (holding that when defendant dismisses an appeal from general sessions, circuit court must affirm the general sessions judgment and amended claims filed only in circuit court are defeated)
- Mann v. Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, 380 S.W.3d 42 (Tenn. 2012) (discussing Rule 54.02 and limits on certifying partial judgments as final)
- Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166 (Tenn. 2011) (trial courts must explain factors supporting attorney-fee determinations)
- Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc., 439 S.W.3d 303 (Tenn. 2014) (trial courts must adequately explain summary-judgment rulings to permit appellate review)
- Johnson v. Memphis Guitar Spa, LLC, 600 S.W.3d 348 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019) (permissive counterclaims/cross-claims may survive dismissal of an appeal in some circumstances)
- Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Jefferson, 104 S.W.3d 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (framework for awarding discretionary costs under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.04)