Plaintiffs Lora Robinson and Christy Robinson are mother and daughter, respectively. On 4 March 1997, Lora Robinson was driving her 1986 Pontiac in Monroe, North Carolina; her daughter was in the car with her. As plaintiffs traveled in a northerly direction, defendant was backing her 1988 Oldsmobile out of a residential driveway, moving in a southerly direction. Defendant failed to yield the right-of-way and collided with plaintiffs’ vehicle, causing damages to the vehicle and injuries to plaintiffs.
On 3 December 1997, defendant contacted plaintiffs and offered to pay $1,000.00 to settle Lora Robinson’s claim, and $650.00 to settle Christy Robinson’s claim. Plaintiffs rejected defendant’s offer and filed a complaint, alleging that defendant was negligеnt in causing the accident. Plaintiffs also stated that they suffered injuries and underwent medical treatment as a result of the accident. Defendant answered, denying that she was negligent. Some time later, on 22 April 1998, defendant made an offer of judgment to plaintiffs, stating that she would Plaintiffs rejected defendant’s offer of judgment and the case рroceeded to a trial by jury.
allow judgment to be entered against her in this action, as to the claims of Lora Robinson for the lump sum of $1,050.00, said amount specifically to include attorney’s fees taxable as costs, and any remaining costs accrued at the time this offer is filed in which the Court might subsequently tax as costs, and as to the claims of Christy Robinson, for the lump sum of $668.00 said amount specifically to include attorney’s fees taxable as costs, and any remaining costs accrued at the time this offer is filed in which the Court might subsequently tax as costs.
During the trial, defendant stipulated that she was negligent in causing the car accident. On 4 April 2000, the jury found defendant’s negligence causеd plaintiffs’ injuries, and awarded $1,000.00 to Lora Robinson and
In his letter, plaintiffs’ attorney informed the trial court that he exрended a total of 29.4 hours of work on plaintiffs’ case and that his normal fee was $150.00 per hour. He therefore asked the trial court to award attorney fees to plaintiffs in the amount of $4,410.00. Defendant’s attorney asked the trial court to fully deny plaintiffs’ motion and award no attorney fees.
The trial court made the following findings of fact:
1. The Plaintiffs’ lawyer incurred time and expense prior to the making of the offers of judgment.
2. The judgment finally obtained exceeded the offers of judgment.
3. The Defendant appealed the arbitration award and failed to make any additional offers prior to trial.
4. The attorney’s fee agreement between Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel is contingent in part and hourly in part. The agreement that Plaintiffs’ counsel has with the Plaintiffs is if the case is resolved without an award of attorney’s fee, the Plaintiffs’ counsel would take a contingent fee. In the event attorney fees are awarded, Plaintiffs’ counsel charges $150 per hour for the time spent in the preparation and execution of the case.
In thе exercise of the discretion of the Court and based on the Findings of the Court, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall recover from the Defendant attorney fees necessitated by this litigation in the amount of $4,410 and Plaintiffs’ costs in this action shall be taxed against the Defendant, said costs being reflected in the Court’s records, the attached billing statement, аnd a reasonable fee for the testimony of Keith Pittman, D.C., to wit:
Certified Mailing (Service on Defendant) $ 3.00
Trial Subpoenas (Certified Mailing — 11 @ 3.00 each) 33.00
Expert Fee — Testimony of Keith Pittman, D.C. 450.00
Total Costs $486.00
The trial court then made the following conclusions of law:
1. The parties have agreed that this Judgment may be signed out of Term, out of County and out of Session;
2. That the Plaintiff, Lora Robinson, have and recover from the Defendant, Tamela Shue, the sum of $1,000;
3. That the Plaintiff, Lora Robinson, have and recover from the Defendant, Tamela Shue, interest at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum from the date this lawsuit was instituted on February 11, 1998, until the Judgment is paid in full pursuant to N.C.G.S. 24-5;
4. That the Plaintiff, Christy Robinson, have and recover from the Defendant, Tamela Shue, the sum of $600;
5. That the Plaintiff, Christy Robinson, have and recover from the Defendant Tamela Shue, interest at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum from the date this lawsuit was instituted on February 11, 1998, until the Judgment is paid in full pursuant to N.C.G.S. 24-5;
6. That Plaintiffs’ counsel made a motion unto the Court for his attorney’s fees pursuant to N.C.G.S. 6-21.1 and expenses and the Court finds:
(a) Plaintiffs’ counsel expended 29.4 hours on this case;
(b) That Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hourly rate of $150.00 is reasonable and typically charged by an attorney of his experience.
The trial court ultimately awаrded plaintiffs $4,410.00 in attorney fees and $486.00 in costs. Defendant appealed.
Defendant brings forth three assignments of error challenging the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to the award of attorney fees to plaintiffs. Defendant
“As a general rule, in the absence of some contractual obligation or statutory authority, attorney fees may not be recovered by the successful litigant as damages or a part of the court costs.”
Washington v. Horton,
[i]n any personal injury or property damage suit, or suit against an insurance company under a policy issued by the defendant insurance company and in which the insured or beneficiary is the plaintiff, upon a finding by the court that there was an unwarranted refusal by the defendant insurance company to pay the claim which constitutes the basis of such suit, instituted in a court of record, where the judgment for recovery of damages is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or less, the presiding judge may, in his discretion, allow a reаsonable attorney fee to the duly licensed attorney representing the litigant obtaining a judgment for damages in said suit, said attorney’s fee to be taxed as a part of the court costs.
Since plaintiffs’ combined jury verdict was only $1,600.00, plaintiffs properly requested attorney fees under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-21.1.
The purpose of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-21.1 is
to provide relief for a person who has sustained injury or property damage in an amount so small that, if he must pay his attorney out of his recovery, he may well conclude that it is not economically feasible to bring suit on his claim. In such a situation the Legislature apparently concluded that the defendant, though at fault, would have an unjustly superior bargaining power in settlement negotiations.... This statute, being remedial, should be construed liberally to accomplish the purpose of the Legislature and to bring within it all cases fairly falling within its intended scope.
Hicks v. Albertson,
Though defendant concedes that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-21.1 is the proper method for requesting attorney fees, she maintains that the trial court’s findings of fact are insufficient to support its
award of attorney fees to plaintiffs and that the award itself constitutes an abuse of discretion. To prevail, defendant must show that the trial court’s ruling is “manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.”
State v. Hennis,
“The discretion accorded the trial court in awarding attorney fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-21.1 is not unbridled.”
Washington,
We will review each of the Washington factors in turn.
As to factor one, the trial court considered defendant’s settlement offer made prior to institution of the action. In his letter to the trial court, defendant’s attorney stated that
1. On December 3, 1997, Defendant offered $650.00 tо Christy Robinson and $1,000.00 to Lora Robinson.
Plaintiffs rejected that offer and filed their complaint on 11 February 1998.
As to factor two, the trial court heard evidence from both attorneys regarding an offer of judgment made after plaintiffs’ suit had been filed. Just before trial, on 22 April 1998, defendant made an offer of judgment to plaintiffs in the amount of $1,718.00. Plaintiffs rejеcted the offer, and the jury ultimately returned a verdict for plaintiffs for $1,600.00. The trial court found that plaintiffs incurred costs of $486.00 for certified mailings and an expert witness fee. The trial court further found, in finding of fact four, that plaintiffs and their attorney had a fee agreement that was contingent in part and hourly in part. In finding of fact two, the trial cоurt found that the judgment finally obtained exceeded the offer of judgment made on 22 April 1998. This finding of fact also satisfies Washington factor six — the amounts of settlement offers as compared to the jury verdict.
As to factor three, plaintiffs concede that defendant did not exercise superior bargaining power. In his letter to the trial court, рlaintiffs’ attorney stated that
I cannot argue that the defendant unjustly exercised superior bargaining power since Allstate Insurance Company was the person in control of the purse strings.
As to factor four, both parties stipulated that “unwarranted refusal by an insurance company” did not apply in this case. Moreover, bеcause this suit was not brought by an insured or a beneficiary against an insurance company defendant, findings of fact are not necessary regarding this
Washington
factor.
See Crisp v. Cobb,
Lastly, as to factor five, the trial court was aware of the timing of defendant’s settlement offer. Defendant’s attorney clearly explained to the trial court that defendant offеred to settle the case for $1,650.00 on 3 December 1997. Defendant’s attorney also informed the trial court that defendant tendered an offer of judgment on 22 April 1998 in the amount of $1,718.00; this sum included attorney fees taxable as costs and any remaining costs accrued at the time the offer was filed which the trial court might later tax as costs.
Of the six Washington fаctors, the parties disagree most fervently as to whether the judgment finally obtained exceeded the offer of judgment made. Plaintiffs argue that attorney fees and costs should be added to the $1,600.00 jury verdict to “beat” the $1,718.00 offer of judgment. Defendant, on the other hand, argues that only the amount of attorney fees actually awardеd as costs should be added to the jury verdict.
Offers of judgment are addressed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 68. Rule 68 states:
(a) Offer of judgment. — At any time more than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against him for the money or property or to the effect speсified in his offer .... If the judgmentfinally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer.
“[W]ithin the confines of Rule 68, ‘judgment finally obtained’ means the amount ultimately entered as representing the final judgment, i.e., the jury’s verdict as modified by
any applicable adjustments,
by the respective cоurt in the particular controversy, not simply the amount of the jury’s verdict.”
Poole v. Miller,
Befоre plaintiffs filed suit, defendant offered to settle the case for $1,650.00, and later made an offer of judgment in the amount of $1,718.00. The jury verdict awarded plaintiffs $1,600.00. The trial court obtained an affidavit from plaintiffs’ attorney, stating that he worked a total of 29.4 hours on the case, and that he normally charged $150.00 per hour, for a total of $4,410.00. He stated that, before the offer of judgment from defendant on 22 April 1998, he had expended 8.5 hours of work on the case, totaling $1,275.00 (a rate of $150.00 per hour). He also presented evidence of $486.00 in costs.
The judgment obtained totaled $1,600.00, plus costs and interest, with the issue of attorney fees argued by counsel in letters to the trial court. It should be noted that the jury verdict, costs and interest exceeded the offer of judgment without considering the attorney fees. Plaintiffs’ attorney maintains that the offer of judgment under Rule 68 was therefore less than the judgment finally obtained, so that he is entitled to the entire $4,410.00 in attorney fees. Defendant’s attorney argues that the offer of judgment ($1,718.00) “beat” thе judgment finally obtained ($1,600.00) because the judgment finally obtained should include only those attorney fees actually awarded under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-21.1. See Poole. Since no attorney fees were actually awarded in the judgment, defendant argues that the only amount to compare against the offer of judgment is the verdict amount of $1,600.00. Under his reasoning, the offеr of judgment “beats” the judgment finally obtained and no attorney fees are allowed.
A judgment is “ ‘[t]he final decision of the
court
resolving the dispute and determining the rights and obligations of the parties,’ ” and “ ‘[t]he law’s last word in a judicial controversy.’ ”
Poole,
After carefully reviewing each of the six
Washington
factors and the entire record, we find that the trial court’s consideration of the factors was adequate. The trial court was presented with letters from both plaintiffs’ and defendant’s attorneys, and those letters clearly delineated the relevant case law, as well as the six
Washington
factors. Detailed findings of fact are not required for each factor.
See Tew,
We are not persuaded by defendant’s argument that our decision will encourage plaintiffs to reject fair settlement offers and proceed to triаl, depending on a trial judge to “rescue” them by later awarding attorney fees. Rather, we agree with plaintiffs that defendant has presented no evidence that the trial court ignored the pretrial motions, affidavits, or the written arguments concerning the Washington factors delivered by both attorneys. Absent such a showing by defendant, we cannot find an abuse of discretion by the trial court in this case. Consequently, we hold that the trial court made adequate findings of fact concerning the Washington factors. While the better practice would be for the trial court to include a statement making it clear that it had fully considered the factors set forth in Washington, we are satisfied that the trial court did so here.
The judgment of the trial court awarding attorney fees to plaintiffs is
Affirmed.