FI FTH DI VI SI ON

M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, RI CKM A N and M A RKLE, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

Febr uar y 8, 2019



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A1 49 8 . REID v

. REID.

M A R K LE

, J ud g e.

Fo l l owi n g len g t h y

an d co n t en t i o u s l i t i g at i o n an d a b en ch t ri al

, th e tri al co u rt

g ran t ed Gi n ger Rei d ’s p e t i t i o n fo r d i v o rce fro m W ay n e Rei d an d award ed at t o rn ey

f ees t o Gi n g er t o t al i n g m o re t han $ 7 2 3 ,3 9 4 u n d er OCGA § § 9 -1 5 -1 4 an d 1 9 -6 -2

.

W ay n e fi l ed an ap p li cat i o n fo r di s cret i o n ary r e v iew, wh ich t h is Co u rt g ran ted

. W ay n e

n o w ap p eal s

, ch al len g i n g bo t h at t o rn ey fee award s on t h e g ro u n d s t h at th e t ri al co u rt

fai l ed to i d en t i fy an y s an ct i o n ab l e co n d u ct an d t h at t h ere was n o ev i d en ce b efo re t h e

t ri al co u rt t h at w o ul d h av e en ab l ed i t t o d et e rm i n e t h e am o u n t o f fees

. Aft er a

t h o ro u g h rev i ew o f t he reco rd

, we affi rm th e fee award u nd er O CGA § 1 9 -6 -2

. W e

al s o affi rm t h e ju d g m en t o f l i ab i l i t y fo r at t o rn ey fees un d er O CGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4, b u t we

co n cl u d e t h a t th e t ri al co u rt erred i n award i n g fees u nd er t hi s co d e s ect i on wi t h o utd et erm i n i n g wh at fees were rel at ed t o t he san ct i o n ab l e co nd u ct

. Acco rd in g l y

, we

v acat e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er o n t h is i s s u e an d rem an d th e c a s e f o r f u rt h er

p ro ceed in g s

.

W e rev i ew award s m ad e u n d e r b o th OCGA § § 9-1 5 -1 4 (b ) an d 1 9 -6 -2 fo r

ab u se o f d i s cret io n

. La n dr y v. W a l s h

, 3 4 2 Ga. Ap p

. 2 8 3

, 2 86 (2 ), 2 8 8 (3 ) (8 0 1 SE2 d

5 5 3 ) (2 0 1 7 ), cert . d en i ed (2 0 18 ).

So v iewed

, t he reco rd sh o ws t h at Gi ng er an d W ay n e m arri ed i n 1 9 9 5 an d h ad

t wo ch i l d ren

. In 2 0 1 1, Gi n g er fi l ed a pet i t i o n fo r d i v orce, an d W ay n e lat er fi l ed a

co u nt ercl ai m fo r d i v orce. In Feb ru ary 2 0 1 2

, t h e t ri al co u rt i s s u ed it s t em p o rary o rd er,

g i v i n g Gi n g er t h e m ari t al res i d en ce an d p ri m ary ph y s ical cu s t o d y o f t h e t wo ch i l d ren

.

Ov er t h e n ex t s ev eral y ears

, th e p art i es en g ag ed i n co n t en t i o u s l i ti g at i o n

, cu l m i n at i n g

i n a 2 0 -d ay b en ch t ri al i n 2 01 4 an d fi n al d i v o rce d ecree i n 2 0 1 5

. D u r i n g t h e

p ro ceed in g s

, t h e t ri al co u rt h eard ex t en s iv e ev i d en ce reg ard in g t h e part i es ’ fi n an ces

.

Th e t ri al co u rt award ed t he p art i es jo i n t l eg al cu s t o d y

, wi t h p ri m ary p h y s i cal cu s t o dy

t o Gi n g er; al i m o n y fo r Gi n g er fo r u p t o 60 m o n t h s ; an d t he m ari t al h o m e t o Gi n ger. 1

1 W ay n e ap p eal ed fro m t h e fi nal d iv o rce d e c r e e t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f

Geo rg i a. Th e Co u rt di sm i s s ed t h e ap p eal

, co n c l u d i n g t h at t h e ap p l i cat i o n fo r

d i s cret i o n ary

ap peal o f t h e d ecree h ad b een i m p ro v i d en t l y

g ran t ed

.

2Gi n g er req ues ted at t orn ey fees

. At th e co ncl u s i o n o f t h e b en ch t ri al

, t h e t ri al

co u rt res erv ed th e i s s u e o f fees

. Th e t ri al co u rt s u g g es t ed th at t he part i es ad dres s t h e

fee i s su e i n l et ter b ri efs , an d t h e p art i es ag reed t o d o s o

.

Th ereaft er, Gi n g er s u b m it t ed t h e affi d av i t s o f her t w o at t o rn ey s reg ard i n g t h ei r

t i m e an d ex p en s es

. In t h e fi rs t affi d av i t

, co u n sel set ou t h i s ex p eri en ce an d h o u rl y rat e

an d rep res en t ed t h at t h e am o u nt s ch arg ed were reas o n ab l e. He al s o at t ach ed a p ri nt

o u t o f t h e fees an d ex p en ses ch arg ed

. Th i s d o cu m en t s et o u t t he am o un t Gi n g er was

b i l l ed an d h ad p ai d

, b u t i t d i d n o t l i n k t h os e ch arg es to s p eci fi c wo rk

. In t h e s eco n d

affi d av i t, Gi n g er’ s o t h er at t o rn ey s t at ed t h at h er h o u rl y rat e was reas o nab l e, b u t s h e

d i d n o t s peci fy wh at t h at rat e was

. Sh e at t ach ed a s i n g le p ag e d ocu m en t s h o wi n g s h e

h ad ch arg ed G i n g er $ 9 0 ,6 4 6

, b u t wi t h ou t an y ex p lan at i o n as to t h e w o rk d o n e. Gi n g er

al s o s u b m i t t ed a l et t er b ri ef o n t h e i s s u e o f fees

, al th o u g h n o s u c h f i l i n g a p p ears in

t h e reco rd

.

W ay n e op p o s ed Gi n g er’ s m o t i o n fo r fees

. W i t h res p ect t o fees u n d er OCGA

§ 1 9 -6 -2

, W ay

n e arg u ed t h at t h e p art i es ’ fi n an ci al ci rcu m s t an ces d i d n o t w arran t an

award o f fees

. As to fees u n d er OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4

, W ay n e arg u ed t h at h e h ad n ot

en g ag ed i n an y s an ct i o n ab l e co n d u ct

, an d Gi n g er h ad n o t es t ab l i s h ed wh at fees were

at t ri b u t ab l e t o t h e al l eg ed s an ct i o n ab l e co n d u ct

. He fu rt h er arg ued th at t h e t ri al co u rt

3s h o u ld no t t ak e i nt o acco u n t an y s et t l em en t o ffers wh en co ns i d eri n g wh et h er t o award

fees

.

Th e t ri al co urt award ed fees t o Gi n g er, fi n di n g t h at fees were ap pro p ri at e u n d er

OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 b ecau s e Gi n ger an d t h e ch i ld ren were dep en d en t o n W ay n e fo r

s u p p ort

, W ay n e h ad m

u l t i p le ad v an ced d eg rees an d earn ed a s u b s t an t i al am o u n t o f

m o ney

, an d Gi n g er earn ed s i g n i fi can t l y l es s i n co m e. Th e t ri al co u rt fu rt h er n o t ed t h at

W ay n e fi n an ced t h e l i t i gat i o n t h ro u g h gi ft s fro m h is p aren t s an d i n v es t m en t s

, wh i l e

Gi n ger u s ed res ou rces fro m h er “ o wn sep arat e es t at e, an d s o l d jewel ry an d cas h ed in

i n s u ran ce p o l i ci es s o t hat s h e co u l d s u rv iv e an d co n t i nu e t o d efen d h ers el f.” On t h i s

b as i s

, t he t ri al co u rt award ed Gi n g er $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 i n at to rn ey ’ s fees an d co s t s

. Tu rn i n g

t o OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 (b ), t h e t ri al co u rt fo un d t h at W ay n e “ m ai n t ai n ed p o s i t i o n s an d

cl ai m s t h ro u g h ou t t hi s d i v o rce act i o n t h at l ack ed su b st an t i al ju s t i fi cat i o n an d

p rev en ted s et t l em en t

. [W ay n e] u n n eces s ari l y ex p an d ed t h e cas e wi t h h i s co n d u ct an d

l i ti g i o u s p o s t u ri n g .” Sp ec i f i c a l l y, t h e t ri al co u rt n ot ed th at W ay n e s ou g ht p ri m ary

cu s t o d y o f t he ch i l dren

, d es p i te Gi n g er’ s y ears as a s t ay -at -h o m e p aren t

, wi t h l i t t l e

ev i d en t i ary su p p o rt fo r h is p o s i t i on

, an d t h a t he d em an d ed m o n t h l y ch i l d s u p p o rt

fro m Gi n ger reg ard l es s o f wh i ch p aren t ret ai ned p h y s i cal cu s to d y o f t he ch i l d ren

. Th e

t ri al co u rt fu rt h er co n s id ered W ay ne’ s rep eat ed at t em p t s to p o i nt t o Gi n g er’ s al co h ol

4co n su m

p t i o n as a m ean s t o ob t ai n cu s t o d y

, w h ere t h e u s e w a s n o t as p ro fo u n d as

W ay n e al l eg e d

, l ead i n g t o u n n eces s ary t es t i ng

, m o n i t o ri n g

, m o t i o n s

, an d ex p ert

ev i d en ce. Th e t ri al co u rt al s o co n s i d ered Gi n g er’ s m an y at tem pt s t o s et t le t h e cas e,

wh i ch W ay n e n o t o n l y refu s ed b u t t o wh i ch h e s u b m i t t ed b ad fai t h co u n t ero ffers

. As

a res ul t

, t h e t ri al co u rt co n cl ud e d t h a t W ay n e’ s co n d u ct ex p an d ed an d d el ay ed t h e

l i ti g at i o n

, an d i t award ed Gi n g er fees i n t h e am o u n t o f $ 4 73 ,3 9 4 .4 1 u n der OCGA §

9 -1 5 -1 4 (b ).

W ayn e fi l ed an ap p l icat i o n fo r d i s cret i on ary rev iew of t h e fee award

, wh i ch

t h i s Co u rt g ran t ed . Th e i n s tan t ap p eal fo l l o wed

.

1

. W ay n e arg u es t h at t he t ri al co u rt erred in award i ng fees u n d er OCGA § 1 9

-

6 -2 becau s e t h ere w as n o ev i d en ce t h at t h e fees w ere reas o n ab l e o r t h at Gi n g er l ack ed

t h e res o u rces t o l i t i g at e her cl ai m s

. He fu rt h er co n t en d s t h at t h e t ri al co u rt fai l ed to

co n si d er t h e am o u n t o f fu nd s Gi n g er recei v ed fro m h er fam i l y

. W e d i s cern n o erro r.

“ As a g en eral ru l e, G eo rg i a l aw d o es n o t p ro v id e fo r t h e award o f at to rn ey fees

ev en t o a p rev ai l i n g p art y u n les s au t ho ri zed b y s t at ut e o r b y co n t ract

. ” (Ci t at i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed .) Co t h r a n v. Meh o s ky , 2 8 6 Ga. Ap p. 6 4 0

, 6 41 (6 4 9 SE2 d 8 3 8 )

(2 0 0 7). Un d er OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 (a) (1 ),

5[t ] h e g ran t o f at t o rn ey ’ s fees as a p art o f t h e ex p en s es o f l i t i g at i on

, m ad e

at an y t i m e d u ri n g t h e p en d en cy o f t h e l i ti g at i o n , wh et h er t he act i o n i s

fo r al i m on y

, d i v o rce an d al im o n y

, or co n t em p t o f co u rt ari s i n g o u t o f

ei t h er an al im o n y cas e o r a d i v o rce an d al i m o ny cas e, i n cl u d i n g b u t n o t

l i m i t ed t o co nt em

p t o f co u rt o rd e r s i n v ol v i n g p ro p ert y d i v i si o n

, ch i l d

cu s t od y

, an d c h i l d v is i t at i o n ri g ht s

, s h al l b e: (1 ) W i t h i n t h e s o u n d

d i s cret i o n of t h e co u rt

, ex cep t t h at t h e co u rt s h al l co ns i d er t h e fi n an ci al

ci rcu m s t an ces o f b o t h p art i es as a p art o f i t s d et erm i n at i o n o f t h e am o u n t

o f at t o rn ey ’ s fees , i f an y

, t o b e al l owed ag ai n s t ei t her p art y

.

Th e p u rp o s e o f an award o f at t o r n e y f e e s p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 i s “ to

en s u re effec t i v e r e p r e s en t at i on o f bo t h s p o us es s o t h at al l is s ues can b e fu l l y an d

fai rl y res o l ved .” (Ci t at i o n o m it t ed

. ) Jo h n s o n v. Jo h n s o n

, 2 6 0 G a. 44 3

, 44 4 (3 9 6 SE2 d

2 3 4 ) (1 9 9 0 ). An award u n d er t h i s s t at u te “ i s n ot p red i c a t e d u p on a fi n d i n g o f

m i s co n du ct o f a p art y .” (Ci tat i o n o m i t t ed .) M o o n v. Mo o n , 2 7 7 Ga. 3 7 5

, 3 7 9 (6 ), n

.

4 (5 8 9 SE2 d 7 6 ) (2 0 03 ).

In i t s o rd er, t h e t ri al co u rt fo u nd t h at Gi n ger an d t h e ch i ld ren were d ep en d en t

o n W ay n e fo r s u p p ort ; t hat Gi n g er was a s t ay -at -h o m e p aren t earn in g ab o ut $ 2 ,8 0 0

a m o n t h d u e t o h er wo rk as a t h erap eu t ic ho rs eb ack ri d in g i ns t ru ct o r an d “ s o m e

i n co m e fro m s ep arat e as s et s ; ” an d t h at W ay n e earn ed s i g n i fi can tl y m o re in co m e an d

recei v ed $ 6 2 5 ,0 0 0 fro m h i s paren t s d u ri n g t h e l i t i g at i o n al on g wi t h ov er $ 2 4 0 ,0 0 0

6fro m o t h er as s et s

. Th e tri al co u rt fu rt h er no t ed th at Gi n g er u s ed fu n d s fro m h er o wn

es t at e, s o l d jewel ry

, an d cas h ed i n i n s u ran ce po l i ci es fo r fu n d s d u ri n g t h e l i t i g at i o n.

Th e reco rd al s o s h o ws t h at Gi n g er b orro wed fu n d s fro m h er f a m i l y t o p ay h er

l i ti g at i o n ex p en s es

.

OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 d o es n o t req u ire a t ri al co u rt t o m ak e an y fi n d i ng as t o t h e

reas on ab l en es s o f fees

. Th e t ri al co urt h ad b efo re i t ev id en ce o f t he reas o nab l en es s

o f t h e fees

, an d we can n ot s ay t h at t h e tri al co urt ab u s ed i t s di s cret i on h ere. Vi n es v.

Vi n es , 2 9 2 Ga. 5 5 0

, 5 5 2 -5 5 3 (4 ) (7 3 9 SE2 d 3 74 ) (2 0 1 3 ).

M o reo v er, aft er a t ho ro ug h rev i ew of t h e reco rd

, we c o n c l u d e t h at t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s o rd er co n t ai n s su f f i c i en t fact u al fi nd i ng s t o s h ow th at i t co n si d ered t h e

rel at i v e fi nan ces o f each p art y

. W ay n e s i m p l y q u i b b les wi t h t he t ri al co urt ’ s

co n cl u s i o n

. Th i s d o es n o t p ro v i d e a b as is fo r rev ers al

. See Ho a r d v. Bever i d g e

, 2 9 8

Ga. 7 2 8

, 7 3 1 (2 ) (7 8 3 SE2 d 6 29 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (“ Th e reco rd i n t h is cas e s h o ws t h at ev i d en ce

was p res en ted

. . . reg ard i n g t h e p art i es ’ fi n an ci al ci rcu m s t an ces

. . . [an d t h at ] t h e t ri al

co u rt carefu l l y co ns i dered t he p art i es ’ rel at i ve fi n an ci al p o s i t i o n s

. . . . Bas ed o n t h i s

reco rd , we can n o t s ay

t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ab us ed i t s d i s cret io n .”).

2

. W ay n e n ex t arg u es t h at th e t ri al co u rt erred i n award i n g fees u n d er OCGA

§ 9 -1 5 -1 4 (b ) b ecau s e t h e t ri al co u rt fai led t o i den t i fy an y s an ct i o n ab l e co n du ct t h at

7wo u l d ju s t i fy t h e award

, an d t h e t ri al co u rt s h ou l d n ot h av e rel i ed o n hi s s t ead fas t

refu sal t o set t l e as a b as i s t o award fees

. Al t h o u g h w e co n cl u d e th at t h e reco rd

s u p p ort s t h e t ri al co urt ’ s ju d g m en t o f l i ab i l i t y fo r at t o rn ey fees

, we ag ree t hat t h e t ri al

co u r t e r r e d i n g ran t i n g an award wi t h o u t ev id en ce li n k i n g t h e am o u n t o f t h e award

t o s an ct i o n ab l e co n d u ct

.

OCGA § 9-1 5-1 4 (b ) “ au t h o ri zes a t ri al co u rt t o award reas o n ab l e at t o rn ey fees

u p o n a fi n d i n g t h at an act i on o r an y p art t h ereo f l ack ed s u b st an t i al ju s t i fi cat i o n o r t h at

t h e act i o n was i nt erp o s ed fo r del ay or h ara s s m e n t

, o r i f i t fi n ds t h at an at t o rn ey o r

p art y u n n eces s ari l y ex p an d ed t h e pro cee d i n g b y o t h er i m p ro p er co n d u ct .”

(Pu n ct u at i on o m i t t ed

. ) Ho a r d v. Bever i d ge

, 2 9 8 Ga. 7 2 8

, 7 2 9-7 3 0 (1 ) (7 8 3 SE2 d 6 2 9 )

(2 0 1 6 )

. “ A s u s ed i n th i s Co d e s ect i o n

, ‘ lack ed s u b s t an t ial ju st ifi cat i o n’ m ean s

s u b s t an t i al l y fri v o l o u s

, s u bs t an t i al l y g ro u n dl es s

, o r s u b s t an t i al l y v ex at i ou s

. ” OCGA

§ 9 -1 5-1 4 (b ); s ee al s o Va kh ar wa l a v. V akh a rwa l a

, 3 0 1 Ga. 2 5 1

, 2 5 3 (1 ) (a) (7 9 9

SE2 d 7 9 7) (2 0 1 7).

An award un d er t h i s s ect i o n m u s t b e s u p p o rt e d b y “ su ffi ci en t p ro of o f t h e

a ct u a l co s t

s an d t h e reas o n ab l en es s o f t h o s e c o s t s .” (Ci t at i o n om i t t ed ; em p h as i s

s u p p li ed .) Co h en v. Ro g er s

, 3 4 1 Ga. Ap p

. 1 4 6

, 1 5 2 (2 ) (b ) (7 9 8 SE2 d 7 01 ) ( 2 0 1 7 ),

cert

. d en i ed (M ar. 5 , 2 0 1 8 ).

8To p erm it m ean i n g fu l ap p e l l a t e rev i ew o f an award o f fees an d

ex p en s es

, th e t ri a l c o u r t ’ s o rd er can n o t b e t o o v ag u e an d co n cl u s o ry

,

s u ch as wh ere i t fai l s t o ci te ex am p l es o f co n d u ct t h at au t h o r ize th e

award

. Th e t ri al co u rt n eed n o t ci t e s p eci fi c t es ti m o n y

, arg u m en t o f

co u n s el

, o r an y o t h er s p eci fi c fact u al referen ce i n i t s ord er award in g fees

u n d er OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 ; i t i s o n l y req u i red to s peci fy t he co n d u ct u p o n

wh i ch t h e award i s m ad e.

(Ci t at i o n o m it t ed .) Id

. Th u s

, wh en award i n g at t o rn ey fees u n d er OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 (b ),

t h e t ri al co u rt “ m

u st l i m it t h e f

e e s a w a rd t o t h os e fees in cu rred b ecau se o f t h e

s an ct i o n ab l e co n d uct .” (Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct uat i o n o m it t ed .) Br ewer v. Pa u l k

, 2 9 6 Ga.

Ap p . 2 6 , 3 1 (2 ) (6 7 3 SE2 d 5 4 5 ) (2 0 09 ). As we h av e ex pl ai n ed

,

l u m p s u m or u n ap p o rt io n ed at t o rn ey fees awa r d s a r e n o t p erm it ted i n

Geo rg i a, an d we w i l l v acat e an d rem an d fo r fu rt her f a c t fi n d i n g wh ere

t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ord er, o n i t s fa c e

, f ai l s to s h o w t h e co m

p l ex d eci s i o n

m ak i n g p ro ces s n eces s ari l y i n v o l v ed i n reach i n g a p art i cu l ar d o l l ar

fi gu re an d fai l s t o art icu l at e wh y t he co urt award ed o n e am o u n t o f fees

rat h er t h an an o t h er u nd er OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 (b ).

(Ci t at i o n s an d p u n ct u at i o n o m it t ed .) Mo o r e v. Hu l la n d er

, 34 5 G a. Ap p

. 5 6 8

, 5 7 3 (2 )

(c) (8 1 4 SE2 d 4 2 3 ) (2 0 18 ). See al s o Ha r d ma n v. Ha r d

m a n

, 2 9 5 Ga. 7 32

, 7 40 (4 ) (7 6 3

SE2 d 8 6 1 ) ( 2 0 1 4 ) (v acat in g an d rem an d i n g an award un d er OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 (b )

b ecau s e t h e t ri al co urt d id n o t al l o cat e an y p o rt i o n o f t h e award t o t h e fees i n cu rred

9i n l i t ig at i n g t h e as p ect of t he cas e th at l ack ed s u b s t an t i al j u s t i fi cat i o n ); Fed i n a v.

La r ich ev

, 3 2 2 Ga. Ap p . 7 6, 8 1 (5 ) (7 4 4 SE2 d 7 2 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (v acat in g s an ct i o n s award

u n d er OCGA § 9-1 5-1 4 (b ) wh ere t ri al co u rt fai l ed t o s h o w t h at i t l i m i t ed i t s award

t o fees res u l t in g fro m

p art y ’ s s an ct i o n ab l e co n du ct ).

Here, t h e t ri al co ur t ’s o rd er s uffi ci en t ly id en t i fi es t h e s an ct i o n ab le co n d u ct

,

an d

, h av i n g rev i ewed t h e l en g th y reco rd i n t h i s cas e, we can no t s ay t h e t ri a l co u rt

ab u sed i t s d i s cret i o n i n fi n d i ng t h e i d en t i fi ed co n d uct t o b e s an ct i o n ab l e. H o wev er,

t h ere i s n o ev id en ce i n t h e reco rd t o s h o w h o w th e t ri al co u rt arri ved at t h e p art i cu l ar

d o l l ar am o u nt it award ed

. No t ab l y

, t h e s u b m i s s i o n s b y Gi n g er’ s at to rn ey s d o n o t s et

o u t wh at fees were rel at ed t o t h e s an ct i o n ab l e co n d u ct

. As Gi n g er co n ced es

, o n t h i s

reco rd we lack t h e ev i d en ce t o c o n d uct m ean i ng fu l ap p el l at e rev i ew reg ard i n g t h e

am ou n t o f fees award ed u n der OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 (b ).

Al t h ou g h t h e part ies ag ree t h at t h e award

, as i s

, c a n n o t s t an d

, t hey d i s ag ree

ab o ut t h e p ro p er rem ed y

fro m t h i s Co u rt . W ay n e co n t en ds t h at we m u s t rev ers e t h e

award o u t ri g h t b ecau s e Gi ng er sh o ul d n o t h av e a s eco n d ch an ce t o pu t fo rt h ev i d en ce.

Gi n ger, o n t h e o t her h an d

, co n t en ds t h at w e s h ou l d v acat e an d rem an d fo r fu rt h er

p ro ceed in g s

. Aft er rev i ewi n g t he rel ev an t cas es

, we co n cl u d e t h at t h e p ro p er co u rs e

o f act io n i s t o v acat e an d rem an d

.

10W ay n e ci tes La n d r y v. W a l s h

, 3 4 2 Ga. A p p

. 2 8 3 (8 0 1 SE2 d 5 5 3 ) (2 0 1 7 ), cert

.

d en ied (2 0 1 8 ), fo r t he p ro p o s it i o n t h at rev ers al i s warran ted w h ere t h e fee p ro p o n en t

fai l ed t o p u t ev i d en ce in t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p ort t h e am o u n t o f fees req u es t ed u n d er

OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 (b ). In t h at cas e, we reco g n ized t hat o u r u su al co u rs e o f act i o n was

t o v acat e an d rem an d

, b u t we n ev ert h el es s co n cl u ded t hat co u n s el ’ s fai lu re t o p ro v i d e

ev i d en ce m an dat ed rev ers al

. La n dr y

, 3 4 2 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 87 ( 2 ). In s up p ort o f t h i s

res u l t, we ci t ed t wo cas es : Ho l l o wa y v. Ho ll o wa

y

, 2 8 8 G a. 1 4 7 ( 7 0 2 S E 2 d 1 3 2 )

(2 0 1 0), an d Hu g h es v. Gr ea t S o u t h e r n M

i d wa y, In c.

, 2 6 5 Ga. 9 4 (4 5 4 SE2 d 1 3 0 )

(1 9 9 5). La n d

r y

, 3 42 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 8 7 (2 ). H o wev er, n ei t h er o f th es e cas es req u i res u s

t o rev ers e i n t h e i n s t an t cas e. Fi rs t

, al t h o u g h t h e Su p rem e Co urt in Ho l l o wa y rev ers ed

t h e ju dg m en t

, it rem an d ed t h e cas e “ fo r fu rt h er p ro ceed i n g s .” 2 8 8 Ga. at 1 5 0 (2 ). Th e

s eco n d cas e, Hu g h es , d i d n o t i nv o l v e a fee award u n d er § 9 -1 5 -1 4 (b ).

W e are n o t p ers u ad ed t hat rev ers al i s m an d at ed h ere. In st ead

, we co n cl u d e t h at

t h e p ro per co u rs e i s to vacat e t h e fee award an d rem an d fo r fu rt h er p ro ceed in g s

. See

Ba n ks t on v. W

a r b in gt o n

, 3 1 9 Ga. A p p

. 8 2 1

, 8 2 3 ( 2 ) ( 7 3 8 S E2 d 6 5 6 ) (2 0 1 3 ). In

Ba n ks t on , t h e p art i es s ub m i t t ed l et t er b ri efs o n t he i s s ue o f at t o rn ey fees u n d er § 9

-

1 5 -1 4 (b ), b u t t h ere was n o af f i d a v i t o r o t h er ev i d en ce i n t h e reco rd t o s u p p o rt t h e

am ou n t o f fees award ed

. 3 1 9 Ga. Ap p

. a t 8 2 2-8 2 3 (2 ). W e v acat ed th e award an d

11rem an ded fo r fu rt h er p ro ceed in g s

, i n cl u d i n g a p o ss i b l e h eari ng “ o r o t h er o p p o rt u n i t y

t o es t ab l i s h t h e ap p ro p ri at e am o u n t o f fees .” Id

. at 8 2 3 (2 ).

B a n k s t o n i s d irect l y on p o i n t an d we fi n d i t p ers u as i v e. In d eed

, ot h er cas es

h av e fo l l o wed t h i s l o g i c o n s i m i l ar fact s

. See Tr ot ma n v. Vel o ci t ea ch Pr o j ect Mg mt

. ,

3 1 1 Ga. Ap p

. 2 0 8

, 2 1 4 (6 ) (7 1 5 SE2 d 4 4 9 ) (2 01 1 ) (“ Vel o ci t each ’ s co u n s el s u b m i t t ed

an affi d av i t w i t h bi l l i n g s t at em en ts to t al in g $ 9 5

, 9 74 .6 6

. Th e t ri al co u rt ’ s award o f

$ 3 0 ,0 0 0 m ay h av e b een reas on ab l e, b u t t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er, o n i ts face fai l s t o s h o w

t h e co m p l ex d eci si o n m ak i ng pro ces s n eces s ari l y i nv o l v ed in reach i n g a p art i cu l ar

d o l l ar fi g u re an d fai l s t o art i cu l at e wh y t h e am o u n t award ed was $ 30 ,0 0 0 as o p p o s ed

t o an y ot h er am ou n t .”) (p un ct u at i o n an d fo ot no t e o m i tt ed ); Da ve Lu ca s Co

., In c. v.

Lewi s

, 29 3 Ga. Ap p

. 2 88

, 2 9 3-2 9 4 (5 ) (6 6 6 SE2 d 57 6 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (v acat in g t h e award o f

fees a n d r e m an d i n g fo r an ev i d en t i ary h eari n g w h ere g en eral s t at em en t s i n t h e

at t o rn ey ’ s affi d av i t d i d n o t p r o v i d e d et ai l s o f w h i ch h o u rs were at t ri b u tab l e t o t h e

s an ct i o n ab l e co nd u ct ); 2 Jo h n s o n v. Co r r ea l e

, 2 85 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 0 (1 ) (6 4 8 SE2 d 1 8 0 )

(2 0 0 7) (v acat in g an d rem an di n g wh ere t h e “ re c o r d c o n t ai n [ed ] n o ev i d en ce”

2 W e n o t e t h at t h e ju d g m en t l i n e i n Da ve Lu ca s Co

, read s “ rev ers ed i n p art

, an d

rem an ded wi t h d i rect i o n s

. ” In t h e d i v i s i o n ad dres s i n g fees

, t h e p an el wro t e: “ t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t as t o t h o s e fees m u st b e vacat ed

. Th e c a s e i s rem an d ed fo r an

ev i d en t i ary h eari n g t o es t ab l i s h t h e am o u n t o f fees rel at ed s o l el y t o t h e p r ev ai l i n g

cl ai m . . . .” 2 9 3 Ga. Ap p . at 2 9 4 (5 ).

12reg ard i n g t h e at t orn ey ’ s act ual co s t s an d t h ei r reas o n ab l en es s ). A cco rd i n g l y

, we

c o n c l u d e t hat t h e ap p ro p ri at e o u t co m e i n t he cas e b efo re u s i s t o v acat e t h e t ri a l

co u rt ’ s o rd er an d rem an d t h e c a s e f o r “ a h eari ng (i f req u es ted o n rem an d ) o r o t h er

o p p o rt u ni t y t o es t ab l i s h t h e ap p ro p ri at e am o u n t o f at to rn ey fees .” Ba n ks t o n

, 3 1 9 Ga.

Ap p . at 8 2 3 (2 ). 3

Fi n al l y

, W ay ne a rg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt w as n ot p erm i t t ed to co n s i d er t h e

s et t l em en t o ffers t o es t a b l is h h i s li ab i li t y fo r at to rn ey fees

. It ap p ears t h at W ay n e

wai v ed t h i s arg u m en t wh en h e ag reed to ad d res s t h e s et tl em en t o ffers i n th e affi d av i t s

s u b m i t t ed t o t h e co u rt

.

Ev en i f h e d i d n ot wai v e t h e i s s u e, t h e s t at u t ory p ro vi s i o n ex cl u d in g ev i d en ce

o f co m p r o m i s e neg o t i at i o n s co n t ai n s t h e fo ll o wi n g ex cep t i o n : “ T h i s Co d e s ect i o n

3 Ot h er cas es t h at hav e rev ers ed an at t o rn ey fee award

– i n s tead o f rem an d i n g

–

are d i s t in g u i s h ab l e becau s e t h ey were n o t award s u n d er OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 o r i n v o l v ed

ju ry v erd i ct s i n wh i ch th e m o v an t h ad t h e o p p o rt u ni t y t o p res en t ev id en ce to t h e ju ry

. See Du n ca n v. Cr op s ey

, 21 0 Ga. Ap p

. 8 1 4, 8 1 5 (2 ) (4 3 7 SE2 d 7 8 7 ) (1 9 9 3 ) (rev ers i n g

fee award u n d er OCGA § 9-1 5-1 4 wh ere at t o rn ey d i d n o t s et o ut t h e h o u rs ex p en d ed

o r at t ri b u t ab l e to s an ct i o n ab l e co n d u ct an d d i d n o t sh o w t h at ju ry ’ s award o f $ 1 5 ,0 0 0

was reas o n ab l e); Au g us t a Ten n i s Cl u b

, In c. v. Leg er

, 1 86 Ga. Ap p. 4 4 0

, 4 4 3 (5 ) (3 6 7

SE2 d 2 6 3) (1 9 8 8 ) (rev ers in g ju ry ’ s v erd i ct award in g fees u n d er OCGA § 4 4 -7 -3 5

wh ere t h e at t o rn ey d i d n o t t es t i fy t o an y sp eci fi c am o u n t at t ri bu t ab le t o th e co n d u ct );

Hu b M o to r Co

. v. Zu ra ws ki

, 1 5 7 Ga. A p p

. 8 5 0 (2 7 8 SE2 d 68 9 ) (1 9 8 1 ) (i n c a s e

i n v o l v i n g fees u n d er OCGA § 1 3 -6 -1 1

, i n su ffi ci en t ev i d en ce o f am ou n t o f at t o rn ey

fees s ub m i t t ed t o t h e ju ry req u i red t h e am ou n t b e wri t t en o ff).

13s h al l n o t req u i re ex cl u s i o n o f ev i d en ce o ffered fo r an o t h er p u rp o s e, i n cl ud i n g

, b u t n ot

l i m i ted t o

, . . . n eg at i n g a co n t en t i o n o f u n d u e d el ay o r ab u s e o f p ro ces s

. . . .” OCGA

§ 2 4 -4 -4 0 8 (c). Bas ed o n th is s t at u t o ry l an g u ag e, we co n cl u d e t h at t h e set t l em en t

o ffers were ad m i s s i b l e fo r t he p urp o s e o f d et e r m i ni n g wh et her W ay n e’ s act i on s

c o n s t i t u t ed d el ay o r ab u s e of p ro ces s

. Da ve Lu ca s Co

. , 29 3 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 8 9 (1 ) (c)

(l et t ers were ad m i s s i b l e t o s h o w at t em p t s t o m i t ig at e d am ag es an d t o s u pp o rt cl ai m

t h at d efen d an t h a s b e en s t u b b o rn l y l i t i g i o u s ). See al s o Ca r s o n v. Ca r

s on

, 2 7 7 Ga.

3 3 5

, 3 3 6 (2 ) (5 8 8 SE2 d 73 5) (2 0 0 3 ) (t ri al co u rt awar d e d fees b as ed o n h u s b an d ’ s

refu sal t o co m

p l y w i t h d i s co very req u es ts

, an d reject i o n o f s ev eral set t lem en t o ffers

,

am on g o t h er reas o n s ) ; F

r a n kl in Cr ed i t Mg mt

. Co r p

. v. Fr i ed

en b er g

, 2 7 5 Ga. Ap p.

2 3 6

, 2 4 1 (2 ) (c) (6 2 0 SE2 d 4 6 3 ) (2 00 5 ) (affi rm i ng ju d g m en t o f l i ab i l i t y fo r fees u n d er

OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 (b ) an d fi n di n g t h at p art y wai v ed al l eg ed erro r ari s i n g fro m t ri al

co u rt ’ s fai l u re t o co n si d er s et t l em en t o ffers ). Cf. F r o s t v. Fr o s t

, 2 9 9 Ga. 2 7 8, 2 8 2 (4 )

(7 8 7 SE2 d 6 9 3) (2 0 16 ) (ev i d en ce o f o f f e r s a n d co u n t ero ffers d u ri n g n eg ot i at i on s

were n o t ad m i s s i b l e a t

t ri a l ). Acco rd i n g l y , t he t ri al co u rt was p erm i t t ed to co n s i d er

t h es e s et t l em en t o ffers wh en ev al u at i n g wh et her W ay n e d el ay ed t h e p ro ceed i n g s

.

F o r t h e fo reg o i n g reas o n s

, we affi rm t h e tri al co u rt ’ s award o f fees u n d er

OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 ; w e v acat e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s award o f at t o rn ey fees u n d er O CGA § 9

-

141 5 -1 4 (b ), an d we rem an d t h e cas e fo r fu rt h er p ro c e e d i n g s co ns i s t en t wi t h t h i s

o p i n i o n

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r med in p a rt

, va ca t ed i n p a r t

, a n d ca s e r ema n d

ed

. McFa d

d en

, P.

J. a n d Ri ckma n , J. co n cu r

.

15