### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs , Ja nuary18, 200 6 ROB IN KU YKE ND ALL v. M AR GAR ET HA RP ER
Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Knox County No. 1-4-05 Hon. Dale C. Wor km an, Circuit Judge

No. E2005-01756-COA- R3-CV - F ILED FEBRUARY 22, 2006

Plaintiff sue d for attorney ’s fee s under contra ct of employ ment with de fendant. The Tr i al C o u rt awa rded Judgment f

or fe es. B oth parties appe aled. We af firm.

Te nn. R . A pp. P .3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ffirm e d.

H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P.J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., joined.
Robin S . Kuykendall, Knoxvill e, Te nnessee , pr o s e . Marg are t E. Harpe r, L oudon, Tenne ssee, pro se.

OP IN ION

This action was in i t ially broug ht in Sessions Court, seeking a Judgment by the plainti ff f or attorne y ’s fe es incurr ed by defe ndant. Following the Sessions Court J udg ment the matter wa s appea led to Circuit Court and the Circuit Court enter ed the following J udg ment quoted in p e rt ine nt p art :

1. The parties enter ed into a valid attorney -client contra ct re lative to the ca se of Ha rp e r v . A e sth e tic s, In c ., e t al

. ; 2. The att o rn ey , R obin S. Kuykendall, performed he r duties ac cording to the te rm s o f the c on tr a c t;-2- 3. The c lient, Marg are t E. Har per, paid attorney a total of $7,104.60 for fee s and se rv ic e s r e nd e re d u nd e r the c on tr a c t; 4. That attorne y

was owe d a total fe e of $20,000.00;
5. The a mount owed on the bill is found to be $13,895.00;
6. Th e c on tr a c t pr ov ide d f or c oll e c tio n f

e e s, e xpe ns e , a ndc ou rt

c os ts;
7. Th e a tto rn e y

is o we d $ 3, 00 0. 00 fo r su c h c oll e c tio n fe e s a nd e xpe ns e s in this matter. Judg me nt w a s e nte re d f

or the a mou nt o f $ 16 ,8 95 .0 0 a g a ins t th e de fe nd a nt. B oth pa rt ie s h a ve app e a le d to thi s Cou rt , bu t app e lla nt Ma rg are t E. Ha

rp e r d id n ot f

ile a brie f i n th is C ou rt

. The plaintiff ha s raised se vera l issues on appea l, which we c onsolidate and re state. Essentially , plaintiff raises as an issue the failure of the Trial Court to g rant her summary judgme nt and that the Trial J udg e failed to awa rd her all of t he attorney ’s fees and collection costs to which she w a s e n ti tl e d u n d e r th e Co n tr a c t b e tw e e n th e p ar ti e s . F in a ll y , s h e a s k s th e Co u r t to find that de fe nd a nt’ s a

pp e a l is frivo lou s. I n the Circuit Court pla intiff filed a Motion for Summary J udg ment which the Trial J udg e re fused to g rant, a nd held that an e videntiary hearing should be conducte d on the issues.
As the g e ne ra l ru le , wh e n a su mma ry jud g me nt is ov e rr

ule d a nd the iss ue s g o to t

ri a l, the fa ilure of the trial judge to g rant a summary judgme nt is not r eviewa ble on appea l. W

agner v. Fleming , 13 9 S. W.3 d 2 95 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 4) ; Hobson v. Firs t State Bank , 777 S.W .2d 24 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). Our re view of the rec ord established that this case fa lls withi n the rule, and we de c lin e to a dd re ss the se iss ue s.

Plaintiff strenuously

arg ues that she is e ntitled to more fee s and costs than the T rial Cou rt a wa

rd e d. Th e Tria l Co urt’ s Judg me nt c ome s to us wi th a pr e su mpt ionof

c or re c tne ss u nle ss the evidence preponder ates ag ainst the j udg ment. Tenn. R. App. P

. 13(d). The evidence does not preponde rate ag ainst the Trial Court’s finding s. The Trial Court heard the evidenc e, re viewed the Con tr a c t be tw e e n th e pa

rt ie s, a ndthe Judg e in h is f ind ing s said, qu oti ng fr om the Con tr a c t: “I unde r s tan d th a t th e mi n imu m f e e s w h ic h w il l b e c h ar g e d , w il l b e b a s ed upon an hourly

rate of $100 per

hour.”
An d M s. Ku yke nd a ll, a c tua lly , is b ill ing a t a hig he r r a te . A ndby

c on tr a c t, i t sa y s $ 10 0 a n h ou r i s a

min imu m bi ll.
“In the eve nt the minimum hourly rate chang es, y ou will give me at least 60-3- day s notice of suc h chang e, which f rom there afte r will be ef

fec tive.”
So I assume we ’ve g ot $100 an hour c harg e. At trial, plaintiff objec ted to this finding, but the Trial Court he ld that she did not give defe ndant notice pur suant to the terms of the Contra ct as to the incr ease in the hourly rate

. There is no dispute about the proprie ty of the leg al servic es re ndere d in this case or the ho ur s e xpe nd e d, a ndwh e re a n atto rn e y dis c ha rg e s h is o r h e r d uti e s a

pp ro pria te ly , he or sh e is entitled to rea sonable a g ree d-upon compe nsation for th o s e services. See, Stark s v. Browning , 20 S.W .3 d 6 4 5 (T enn. Ct. App. 1999). Our revie w of this case reve als the Trial J udg e enf orce d the Contract acc ording to its terms, and we concur in the Trial Court’s finding that plaintiff is entitled to fee s and costs in the amount aw arde d and that such fee s are rea sonable. We acc ording ly aff irm the Tria l Co urt’ s Judg me nt.

Final ly , p la

in ti f f a r g u e s that this C ourt should find that defe ndant’s appe al is frivolous a ndse e ks a tto rn e y ’s fe e s, c os ts andint e re st p ur su a nt t o T e nn . Co de An n. § 2 7- 1- 12 2. We f indthi s issue to be without merit, be cause both pa rties filed separ ate notices of appea l on the same date, and bo th a pp e a ls w e re fo un d to be wi tho ut m e ri t. Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff

ir m th e Judg me nt o f the Tria l Co urt an d rem and, w iththe c os t of the a ppeal a ssessed one- half to Robin S. Kuykendall, and one -half to Ma rg are t E. Harpe r.

______________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.