766 S.E.2d 700
S.C.2014Background
- SCDOT condemned 0.314 acres of Petitioners' property; jury awarded $125,000 after a two-day trial.
- Petitioners sought attorneys' fees under S.C. Code § 28-2-510(B)(1), requesting $28,233.33 based on a one-third contingency agreement (minus prior offer).
- The circuit court required an itemized lodestar submission and awarded $16,290 (54.3 hours × $300/hr) plus costs; Petitioners had not submitted an itemized statement showing fee charged and hours.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Layman v. State and holding percentage-of-recovery awards inappropriate where statute requires itemization of hours.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether § 28-2-510 permits awarding fees based on contingency agreements or requires a lodestar/itemized analysis; it affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | SCDOT's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorneys' fees under § 28-2-510 may be awarded based solely on a contingency-fee percentage of recovery | Contingency agreement is reasonable and should control; court must first assess its reasonableness (Jackson factors) | § 28-2-510 requires itemized, "actual time expended" and therefore lodestar/itemized submission controls (Layman persuasive) | The contingency contract is a permissible factor but not controlling; § 28-2-510 requires consideration of an itemized statement and other circumstances before awarding fees |
| Whether Layman v. State controls interpretation of § 28-2-510 | Jackson and Vick support percentage approach; Layman controls fee-shifting analyses generally | Layman (state action statute) supports lodestar and itemization; percentage-of-recovery improper where statute requires hours | Layman is persuasive but not controlling because it interpreted a different, more general statute; analysis must focus on the specific terms of § 28-2-510 |
| Whether Jackson requires a threshold finding that the contingency agreement is reasonable before further analysis | Court must first determine contingency fee reasonableness under Jackson before any lodestar review | Jackson factors are instructive but not mandated by § 28-2-510; statute is silent on Jackson factors | Jackson factors may be considered but are not statutorily required; court need not make a threshold Jackson reasonableness finding |
| Adequacy of circuit court's award and procedure (remand necessity) | Circuit court erred by not ruling on contingency reasonableness and by failing to apply Jackson factors | Circuit court properly applied lodestar per Layman and statutory requirement for itemization | Supreme Court found the circuit court failed to follow § 28-2-510 (petitioners did not submit required itemized statement); remand ordered for proper statutory analysis and submission of itemization |
Key Cases Cited
- Layman v. State, 376 S.C. 434 (discusses lodestar requirement under state-action fee statute)
- Jackson v. Speed, 326 S.C. 289 (identifies factors for assessing reasonable attorneys' fees)
- Vick v. South Carolina Dep't of Transportation, 347 S.C. 470 (Ct. App.) (approved contingency-fee use in condemnation context)
- Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc., 310 S.C. 492 (requires specific findings for fee-factor analysis)