563 S.W.3d 568
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Allen (Colonel) Hargis moved for attorney's fees after a 2017 circuit-court order resolving a contract dispute over a 2009 property-settlement agreement; he attached his counsel's affidavit listing $18,325 in fees.
- Allen also incurred $15,871.20 in testifying-expert fees for Col. Mark Sullivan, which the circuit court later disallowed.
- Lynn Hargis timely opposed the fee motion, argued the statute did not apply to domestic-relations matters, and asked for a hearing to present evidence of the parties’ relative financial abilities.
- On April 27, 2017 the circuit court awarded Allen $18,325 in attorney’s fees (offset by a prior award to Lynn), without holding an evidentiary hearing or ordering written affidavits.
- Lynn moved for relief under Ark. R. Civ. P. 59 and appealed, contending she was denied an opportunity to be heard on the financial-ability issue and that this denial violated procedural due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lynn) | Defendant's Argument (Allen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lynn was entitled to a hearing or other opportunity to present evidence in opposition to Allen’s attorney-fee motion under Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(e)(3), 43(c), and 78(c) | Lynn argued Rule 54(e)(3) required an opportunity for adversary submissions and that she timely requested a hearing to present evidence of the parties’ relative financial abilities, so the court must have afforded oral testimony or accepted affidavits | Allen relied on discretion of the trial court (and domestic-relations precedent) that hearings on fee motions are not always required; the response was filed and the court need not accept oral testimony | Reversed: Rule 54(e)(3) mandated that Lynn be afforded an opportunity for adversary submissions; because she timely requested a hearing and the court did not direct her to submit admissible written evidence, the court should have allowed a fuller opportunity to be heard; remanded for proceedings consistent with the rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Hargis v. Hargis, 2018 Ark. App. 469, 561 S.W.3d 336 (companion case addressing the underlying contract dispute) (background and record context)
- Stilley v. James, 347 Ark. 74, 60 S.W.3d 410 (2001) (court approved resolving fee disputes during a later hearing when opposing party had opportunity to be heard)
- Chrisco v. Sun Industries, Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990) (factors often considered in awarding attorney’s fees)
- Prescott Sch. Dist. v. Steed, 2018 Ark. App. 424, 559 S.W.3d 759 (rule that "shall" in procedural rules is mandatory)