162 So. 3d 1264
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Monster Rentals filed suit on open account under La. R.S. 9:2781 seeking $4,122.28, interest, attorney fees and costs; Coonass Construction (CCA) defaulted and a default judgment was rendered awarding the amount plus “attorneys’ fees” in unspecified sum.
- Monster Rentals later pursued post-judgment collection (judgment debtor exam, writ of attachment against agent, garnishment) and located a garnishee holding funds.
- Monster Rentals moved to have the trial court set a specific dollar amount for attorney fees both for obtaining the default judgment and for post-judgment collection; it submitted redacted billing invoices but did not formally offer unredacted invoices into evidence.
- The trial court declined to fix attorney fees for obtaining the default judgment (finding that would amend a final judgment) but awarded $4,000 for post-judgment collection work and taxed subsequent costs.
- Both parties appealed: CCA argued the $4,000 award was unsupported; Monster Rentals argued the court should have fixed fees for the original default judgment, increased the collection-fee award, and awarded appellate fees.
- The court of appeal affirmed: it held the trial court could not set a dollar amount for fees after a final default judgment, found the $4,000 collection award not an abuse of discretion, and denied appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Monster Rentals' Argument | Coonass' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could fix a specific dollar amount for attorney fees awarded generally in a final default judgment | Court should be allowed to fix/establish amount after judgment | Fixing amount post-judgment impermissibly amends a final judgment | Trial court correctly refused — fixing amount post-final judgment would substantively amend it |
| Whether the $4,000 award for post-judgment collection was reasonable | Amount should be higher; relied on (redacted) invoices showing more fees | Amount is excessive given record | $4,000 not an abuse of discretion; supported by trial court’s findings on hours and hourly rate |
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing to consider redacted billing statements | Redacted invoices reflect fees and should be considered; unredacted available in camera | Invoices were not properly offered into evidence and were redacted; court properly declined to rely on them | Trial court within discretion to refuse redacted/informal evidence; no manifest error in excluding them |
| Whether appellant (Monster Rentals) is entitled to attorney fees for this appeal | Should be awarded appellate fees for work on appeal | No entitlement; much of appeal meritless | Denied — appellate fees not warranted under circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Opelousas Auth. v. Toledo, 773 So.2d 294 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (trial court may not amend final judgment to add a specific dollar amount of attorney fees awarded only as “reasonable”)
- State Dep’t of Transp. & Dev. v. Williamson, 597 So.2d 439 (La. 1992) (factors for determining reasonableness of attorney fees)
- Covington v. McNeese State Univ., 118 So.3d 343 (La. 2013) (appellate review of attorney-fee awards is for abuse of discretion)
- Stobart v. State, Dept. of Transp., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (manifest error standard for review of factual findings)
- Chrysler Fin. Co. v. Gene Ducote Automotive, 916 So.2d 1187 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (discussed but not followed regarding establishing fees after judgment)