576 S.W.3d 90
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- A jury found Roger Pleasant, James Hinton, Brian Hinton, and Accident Claim Service, LLC liable for multiple violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA); Pleasant was held vicariously liable for all 13 violations.
- The trial court assessed civil penalties of $2,000 per violation and entered judgment for the State; defendants appealed the merits (affirmed in Pleasant v. McDaniel).
- The State petitioned for recovery of expenses, costs, and attorneys’ fees under Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(e), seeking $121,447.47 (fees $115,200; costs $6,247.47).
- Defendants objected, arguing (inter alia) that: (1) state-employed attorneys cannot be awarded fees; (2) the State did not prevail on the majority of its claims so fees are inappropriate; (3) time entries showed implausible >24-hour workdays; and (4) they were entitled to a hearing and specific findings.
- The circuit court awarded $115,200 in attorney’s fees and $6,247.47 in costs to the State; defendants appealed the fee award.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the fee and cost award, holding the award conformed to § 4-88-113(e) and rejecting defendants’ procedural and substantive challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to recover fees | State: AG entitled to recover expenses and fees under § 4-88-113(e) | Defs: State-employed attorneys cannot recover attorney's fees because they are salaried | Held for State: statute authorizes recovery by the Attorney General; salaried status does not bar award |
| Reasonableness of recorded hours | State: submitted time records and affidavits showing qualifications, hourly rates, and time spent | Defs: time entries show implausible >24-hour workdays and inflated hours | Held for State: court accepted State’s explanation that entries aggregated work completed on same date; no abuse of discretion |
| Prevailing party requirement | State: prevailed on many ADTPA claims and is entitled to fees under statute | Defs: State did not prevail on majority of claims; fees therefore inappropriate | Held for State: defendants cited no controlling authority; State prevailed sufficiently; award allowed under statute |
| Procedural protections: hearing and findings | State: opposed hearing not requested; relied on submitted affidavits and records | Defs: requested hearing and more detailed findings | Held for State: defendants waived hearing (did not request one); court’s brief findings referencing submitted materials were adequate |
| Application of Chrisco factors | State: relied on submitted affidavits addressing experience, time, complexity, results | Defs: argued Chrisco factors were not proved | Held for State: defendants waived this issue by not raising it below; appellate court declined to address it |
| Excessiveness of award | State: provided no unreasonable fees beyond record support | Defs: award excessive and unsupported; requested reduction | Held for State: defendants failed to present alternative reasonable fee or develop argument; court affirmed award |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanners v. Giant Oil Co. of Ark., Inc., 373 Ark. 418 (general rule that attorney's fees are not allowed except when provided by statute)
- Gill v. Transcriptions, Inc., 319 Ark. 485 (Arkansas follows the American Rule barring attorney's fees absent statutory authority)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 48 Ark. App. 136 (attorney's-fee awards rest in circuit court's sound discretion)
- City of Little Rock v. Carpenter, 374 Ark. 511 (statutory interpretation: construe statutory language according to ordinary meaning)
- Chrisco v. Sun Industries, Inc., 304 Ark. 227 (factors to consider in determining reasonableness of attorney's fees)
- Burke v. Strange, 335 Ark. 328 (arguments not raised below are waived on appeal)
- Thomas v. Olson, 364 Ark. 444 (prevailing-party analysis when claims are dismissed and fee entitlement is contested)
- Buckingham v. Gochnauer, 2017 Ark. App. 660 (procedural waiver of hearing on fee petitions)
- MDH Builders, Inc. v. Nabholz Constr. Corp., 70 Ark. App. 284 (appellate refusal to address arguments lacking citation or development)
- Alexander v. McEwen, 367 Ark. 241 (court will not develop issues for a party on appeal)