Miller Fence Co. v. Gordon Davis.
24-P-0203
| Mass. App. Ct. | Apr 3, 2025Background
- Miller Fence Co. (Miller Fence) and Gordon Davis (Davis) entered a contract for construction of fencing; Davis cancelled eight days later.
- Contract contained a cancellation fee, a restocking fee for ordered materials, and allowed for recovery of legal fees and costs of collection.
- Upon cancellation, a dispute arose over appropriate fees charged to Davis’s deposit, resulting in a credit card chargeback to Davis.
- Miller Fence sued to recover $2,412.27 in damages plus $9,910.04 in attorney’s fees; the trial court awarded Miller Fence its damages but only $800 in fees.
- Miller Fence appealed the attorney’s fee award, arguing it was entitled to recover the full amount actually incurred under the contract; the Appellate Division and then the Appeals Court affirmed the lower award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court must award actual incurred fees | Contract requires payment of all actual attorney’s fees and costs | Court has discretion to determine a reasonable attorney’s fee | Court has discretion to award reasonable fees only |
| Whether $800 was unreasonably low for attorney’s fees | Full fees justified due to defendant’s aggressive litigation conduct | Dispute was small and straightforward, not warranting high fees | $800 not an abuse of discretion |
| Must the court explain in detail why fees requested were reduced | Court required to analyze and explain each fee item | No detailed invoice-by-invoice analysis required | No duty for detailed fee-by-fee explanation |
| May contract override reasonableness limitation | Contract requires all actual fees regardless of reasonableness | Massachusetts law requires fees be fair and reasonable | Reasonableness limitation overrides contract |
Key Cases Cited
- Bournewood Hosp., Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 371 Mass. 303 (Mass. 1976) (attorney’s fees only allowed in litigation between opposing parties in limited instances including by valid contract)
- First Natl. Bank v. Brink, 372 Mass. 257 (Mass. 1977) (party seeking attorney’s fees must show the amount is fair and reasonable even if based on contract)
- Trustees of Tufts College v. Ramsdell, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 584 (Mass. App. Ct. 1990) (payment of contract-based attorney’s fees limited to what is fair and reasonable)
- Berman v. Linnane, 434 Mass. 301 (Mass. 2001) (determination of reasonable fee is at the discretion of the judge)
- Citizens Bank of Mass. v. Travers, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 174 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007) (court must ensure requested fees are reasonable even if contractually provided)