FOURTH D I VI SI ON

DI L LA RD, P. J.

, RI C KM A N and BROWN, 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.

P le a s e r e fe r to the S upr e m e C our t of G e or gia Judic ia l

E m e r ge nc y Or de r o f M a r c h 1 4

, 2 0 2 0 for fur the r

infor m a tion a t (https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s ).

M ay 18, 2020



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 0 A0 56 4 . BROOKS v . HAYDEN.

D I LLA R D , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

Sh an t ai L. Bro ok s ap p eal s t h e t ri al co urt ’ s ord er i m p o s i n g a 1 2 -m o n t h s t al k i n g

p ro t ect i v e o rd er ag ai n st h er (s o u g h t b y Lan i a Hay d en ), an d as s es si n g at t o rn ey fees

.

S p eci fi cal l y

, Bro o k s arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred by award i n g at t o rn ey f e e s t o

Hay d en wi t h o u t s p eci fy in g a s t at u t o ry o r fact u al b as i s fo r t h e award

. Fo r t h e reas on s

s et fo rt h i n

fr a

, we v acat e t h e at t o rn ey -fee award an d rem an d t he cas e wi t h di rect i o n.

Th e reco rd s h o ws th at Bro o k s an d Hay d en ’ s h u s b an d h av e a ch il d t o g et h er. On

Ap ri l 1 9

, 2 0 1 9

, Hay d en

— wh o i s a v as cu lar s pec ia list— fi l ed a p et i t i o n fo r rel i ef u n d er

t h e s tal k i n g s t at u t e ag ai n s t Bro o k s

, al l eg i n g t h at Bro o k s rep eat ed l y co n tact ed h er at

h er “ jo b an d p l ace of b u s i n es s ” s i n ce 2 01 7

. Hay d en al s o al l eg ed

, i n t er a l i a

, t h at in

2 0 1 8

, Bro o k s cal l ed h er wo rk p ret en d i n g t o b e a p at i en t wi t h a co m pl ai n t ab o u t h er,s h o wed u p at h er ho u s e, was cau g h t o n cam era s i t t i n g o ut s i d e o f h er wo rk pl ace, an d

fo l l o w ed h er t o W al -m art

, wh ere t h e p o l i ce were ev en t u al l y cal l ed

. Hay d en i d en t i fi ed

n u m ero u s o t h er i n ci d en ts i n wh i ch Bro o k s fo ll o w ed or h aras sed her, i n cl u d i n g o n e

wh ere— o n t he d ay b efo re s he fi l ed t h e s t al k i n g p et i t i o n

— Bro o k s cal l ed h er at wo rk

,

as k ed t o s p eak t o a s u p erv i s o r, ev en t u al l y sh o w ed u p at her wo rk pl ace, an d t h en h ad

t o b e es co rt ed o ff t h e p ro p ert y b y s ecu ri t y

.

On Ap ri l 26

, 2 0 1 9, t h e t ri al c o u r t h el d a h eari n g on Hay d en ’ s p et i ti o n

, an d

u l t i m at el y i s s u ed a 1 2

- m o n th s t al k i n g p ro t ect i v e o rd er, p recl u di n g Bro o k s fro m

co n tact i ng Hay d en

, fo l l o wi n g her, o r p l aci ng h er u n d er s u rv ei l lan ce. At t h e cl o s e o f

t h i s h eari n g

, Bro o k s c o n s en t ed t o t h e o rd er. An d wh il e n ei t h er p art y req u es t ed

at t o rn ey fees

, t h e t ri al co u rt

, wi t h o ut ex p lan at i on

, award ed Hay d en $ 7 50 i n at t o rn ey

fees “ b y o rd er o f t h e co u rt .” Th i s ap p eal fo l l o w s

.

In h er s o l e en u m erat i o n o f erro r, Bro ok s co n ten d s th at t h e tri al co u rt erred by

fai l i n g t o p ro vi d e a s t at u t o ry o r fact u al b as is fo r t h e at t o rn ey -fee award

. An d b ecau s e

we ag ree t h at t h e tri al co u rt erred b y n o t pro v i di n g an y fact u al b as is fo r t h e at t o rn ey

fee award

, t h i s cas e i s vacat ed an d rem an d ed fo r p r o c e e d i n g s co n s i s t en t wi t h t h i s

o p i n i o n

.

2Th i s Co u rt g en eral ly ap p l i es an ab u s e-o f-d i s cret i o n s t an d ard “ i n cas es

i n v o l v i n g a cl ai m o f erro r i n th e d eci s i o n t o a w a r d o r d en y at t o rn ey fees .” 1 An d

t y p i cal l y

, an award o f at to rn ey fees i s “ n o t av ai l ab l e i n Geo rg i a u n les s au t h o ri zed by

s t at u te o r co n t ract .” 2 In d eed , we h av e h el d t h at

[w] h en t h ere i s m o re t h an o n e s t at u t o ry b as is fo r t h e at t o rn ey -fee award

an d n ei t h er t h e s t at ut o ry b as i s fo r th e award n o r t h e fi n d i n g s n eces s ary

t o su p po rt an award i s s t at ed i n t h e o rd er an d a r evi ew o f t he r eco r d d

o es

n o t r evea l t h e b as i s o

f t h e a wa r d

, t h e cas e i s rem an d ed fo r an

ex p l an at i on of t h e s t at u t o ry b as is fo r t he award an d t h e en t r y o f an y

fi nd in g s n eces s ary

t o s u pp o rt i t

. 3

1 Ro ger s v. Ba l il es

, 3 33 Ga. Ap p

. 7 2 5, 7 2 5 (7 76 SE2 d 6 5 9 ) (2 0 15 ) (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ).

2 Id

. (p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ).

3 Ha ll v. Ha l l

, 3 3 5 G a. Ap p

. 2 0 8

, 2 1 1 (2 ) (7 8 0 SE2 d 7 8 7) (2 01 5 ) (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ) (em

p has is s u p pl ied ); a cco r d Vi s k u p v. Vi s ku

p

, 2 91 Ga. 1 0 3

, 1 06 (3 ) (7 2 7

SE2 d 9 7 ) (2 01 2 ); Bl u men s h i n e v. Ha l l

, 3 2 9 G a. Ap p

. 4 4 9, 4 5 4 (5 ) (7 6 5 SE2 d 6 4 7 )

(2 0 1 4); Dr i ver v. S

en e

, 3 2 7 Ga. A p p

. 27 5

, 2 7 9 (4 ) (7 5 8 SE2 d 6 13 ) (2 01 4 ); s ee

O’Keef e v. O’Keef

e

, 2 85 Ga. 8 05

, 8 0 6 (6 8 4 SE2 d 2 6 6 ) (2 0 09 ) (h o l d i n g t h at b ecau s e

t h e tri a l c o u rt ’ s o rd er fai led t o s t at e wh i ch o f t wo po s s i b l e st at u t o ry p ro v i s i o n s i t

rel i ed o n an d fai l ed to s et fo rt h t h e req u i red fact s t o s u p p o rt an i m p os i t i o n o f at t o rn ey

fees

, t h e cas e m

u s t b e rem an d ed t o t h e t ri al co u rt fo r i t t o en t er an o rd er p ro p erl y

s et t i n g fo rt h bo t h t h e s t at u t o ry b as i s fo r i t s award

, as wel l as t h e fact s n eces s ary to

s u p p ort t h e award ).

3In t h i s m at t er, t h e t ri al co u rt su m m ari l y award ed at t o rn ey fees t o Hay d en s u a s p o n t e

wi t h o u t p ro v id i n g an y s t at u t o ry b as i s fo r t h e award

. Th e tri al co u rt al s o d i d n o t h o ld

an ev i d en t iary h eari n g at wh i ch i t co u l d hav e p ro v i d ed s u ch a b as i s

. Nev ert h el es s

, a

rev i ew o f t h e reco rd rev eal s t hat o n l y o ne at t o rn ey -fee s t at u te ap p ears t o ap p l y t o t h e

fact s an d ci rcu m s t an ces of t h is cas e. Sp eci fi cal l y

, OCGA § 1 6 -5 -9 4 (d ) p ro v i d es

, in

rel ev an t p art

, t h a t a “ c o u r t m ay g ran t a p ro t ect i ve ord er or ap p ro v e a co n s en t

ag reem en t t o b ri n g ab o u t a ces sat i o n o f co n du ct co n s t i t u ti n g s tal k i n g ,” an d “ [o ] rd ers

o r ag reem en t s m ay

. . . [a] w ard co s t s an d at t o rn ey ’ s fees t o ei t h er p art y [.] ” 4 So

, u n d er

t h e p l ai n l an gu ag e o f OCGA § 1 6 -5 -9 4 (d ) (3 ), “ t h e t ri al co urt h as t h e d i scret i o n to

award co s t s an d at t orn ey fees o n l y wh e[n ] t h e p et i t i o n res u l t s i n th e en t ry o f a co u rt

o rd er o r a co n s en t ag reem en t d es i gn ed t o en d t he co n d u ct co n st i t u t i n g s t al k i n g .” 5

Here, th e tri al co u rt i s s u ed an o rd e r d e s i g n ed t o en d co n d u ct co n s t i t u t i n g

s t al k in g fo r a p eri o d o f 1 2 m o nt h s

, an d t hu s

, h ad t h e d i s cret i o n t o award at to rn ey fees

4 OCGA § 1 6 -5 -9 4 (d ) (3 ).

5 D u rr an ce v. S

ch a d

, 3 4 5 Ga. A pp

. 82 6

, 8 2 9 (1 ) (8 1 5 SE2 d 1 6 4 ) (2 0 1 8 ); s ee

Bi s h o p v. Go i n s

, 30 5 Ga. 3 1 0

, 3 1 2 (8 2 4 SE2 d 36 9 ) (2 01 9 ) (“ [A] n award o f co s t s an d

at t o rn ey fees u n d er OCGA § 1 6

- 5

- 9 4 (d ) (3 ) d ep en d s o n th e t ri al co urt g ran t i n g a

p ro t ect i v e o rd er o r ap p ro v i ng a co n s en t ag reem en t d es i gn ed t o en d t h e co n d u ct

co n st i t u t in g s t al k i n g[,] [an d ]

. . . an y award o f co s t s an d f e e s m u s t b e rel at ed t o t h e

‘ ord er o r ag reem en t an d m u s t b e i n cl u d ed as part o f th e act u al p ro t ect i v e o rd er o r

ap p ro v ed co ns en t ag reem en t .” (p u n ct uat i o n an d ci t at io n o m i t t ed )).

4u n d er OCGA § 1 6 -5 -9 4 (d ) (3 ). 6 Ev en s o

, Bro o k s s u g ges t s t h at t h e t ri al co urt co u ld

h av e award ed at t o rn ey fees u n d er m o re th an o ne at t o rn ey -fee s t at u te, an d as a res u l t

,

i t m u s t cl ari fy t h e st at ut o ry b as is fo r t h e award

. Bu t u n d er t h e fact s an d ci rcu m s t an ces

o f t h i s cas e, we d i s ag ree.

In h er b ri ef, Bro o k s ci t es Leg g et t e v. Leg

get t e

, 7 i n wh ich t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

o f G eo rg ia h el d t h at “ i f a t ri al co u rt fai l s t o m ak e fi n d i n g s o f fact s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt

an award o f at t o rn ey

fees u n d er ei t h er OCGA § 1 9 -6 -2 o r § 9

- 1 5

- 1 4

, t h e cas e m u s t

b e rem an d ed t o th e t ri al co u rt fo r an ex pl an at i o n o f t h e s t at u t o ry bas i s fo r t h e award

6 Rel y in g o n D u rr a n ce

, s up r a

, Bro o k s arg ues t h at th e tri al c o u rt l ack ed

d i s cret i o n t o en t er an at t orn ey -fee award b ecau s e t he p art i es co n s en t ed t o t h e o rd er,

an d t h e t ri al co urt n ev er ru l ed o n t h e m eri ts o f H ayd e n ’s p e ti t i o n

. Bu t Bro o k s ’ s

rel i an ce o n Du r r a n ce i s m is p l aced

. In d eed

, i n Du r ra n ce

, we h el d t h at “ [t ] h e [s t al k i n g ]

s t at u te d o es n o t p ro v i d e t h e t ri al co u rt wi t h t h e d i s cret i o n t o award co s t s an d fees

wh ere n o s u ch o rd er o r co ns en t ag r eemen t i s e n t ered —i

. e., wh ere t h e co u rt n ev er

ru l es on t h e m eri ts o f t h e p et i t i o n .” Du r r a n ce

, 3 4 5 Ga. Ap p

. a t 8 2 9 (1 ) (em p h as i s

s u p p li ed ). Th u s

, c o n t r a r y t o Bro o k s ’ s co n t en t i on

, t h i s Co u rt co n s i d ers a co n s en t

ag reem en t t o b e a ru l in g o n t h e m eri t s o f a p et i ti o n fo r a st al ki n g p ro tect i v e o rd er. See

i d

. Th i s i s ev i d en t fro m t h e p lai n l an g u ag e o f OCGA § 1 6 -5 -9 4 (d ), w h i ch p ro v i d es

d i s cret i o n t o tri al co u rt s t o award at t o rn ey fees i n s t al k i n g cas es

, an d referen ces b o th

p ro t ect i v e o rd ers an d co n s en t ag reem en t s

. S ee OCGA § 1 6 -5 -9 4 (d ) (3 ) (“ Th e co u rt

m ay g ran t a p ro t ect i v e o rd er o r ap p r o ve a co ns en t a g r eemen t t o bri n g ab o u t a

ces s at i o n o f co n d u ct co n s t i t u t i n g s t al k i n g

. Ord ers o r ag re e m e n t s m ay

. . . [a] ward

co s t s an d at t o rn ey ’ s fees t o ei t h er p art y . . . .” (em

ph as i s s u p pl i ed )).

7 2 8 4 Ga. 4 3 2 (6 6 8 SE2 d 2 5 1 ) (2 0 0 8 ).

5an d an y fi n d i n g s n eces s ary t o s u p p o rt it .” 8 Bu t as d i s c u s s ed i n fr a

, n ei th er OCGA §

1 9 -6 -2 o r § 9 -1 5 -1 4 ap p ly i n t h i s cas e. An d i m p o rt an t l y

, t h e t ri al co u rt d id n o t m ak e

a n y fi n d i n g s o f fact , m

uch l es s fi n d i ng s s u ffi ci en t t o s at i s fy ei t h er o f t h o se s t at u t es

.

In d eed

, Bro o k s h as n o t i d en t i fi ed even o n e at t o rn ey -fee s t at u t e wi t h an ex p l an at i o n

o f h o w i t m i g h t ap pl y i n t h is cas e— i n cl u di ng OCGA § 1 6 -5 -9 4 (d ) (3 ). N ev ert h el es s

,

we wi l l b ri efl y ad d res s t h e i n ap p l i cab i l i ty o f t h e s t at u t es at i s s u e i n Leg g et t e t o t h e

fact s o f t h i s cas e

.

W h i l e OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 (a) au t h o ri zes th e award o f at t o rn ey fees

, i t p ro v i d es

t h at :

[i ] n an y

ci v i l act i o n i n an y

co u rt o f reco rd o f t h i s s t at e, reas o n ab le an d

n eces s ary at to rn ey ’ s fees an d ex p en s es of li t i g at io n s h al l b e award ed t o

an y p art y ag ai n s t wh o m an o th er p art y h a s a s s er t ed a cl ai m, d ef en s e, o r

o t h er p o si t i o n wi t h r es

pec t t o wh i ch t h er e exi s ted su ch a co mp l et e

a b s en ce o f an y j u s t i ci a b l e i s s u e of l a w o r f a ct t h at i t c o u l d n o t be

r e a s o n ab l y b el i ev ed t hat a co u rt wo u l d accep t t h e as s ert ed cl ai m

,

d efen s e, o r o th er p o s i t i o n

. 9

8 Id

. at 4 3 3 (2 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

9 (Em p h as i s s u p pl i ed ).

6An d here, Bro o k s di d n o t as s ert an y m eri t l es s cl ai m s o r d efen s es

. To t h e co n t rary

, s h e

u l t i m at el y co n s en t ed t o t h e pro tect i v e o rd er at th e cl o s e o f t h e ev id en t i ary h eari n g o n

Hay d en ’ s p et it i o n

. Fo r s im i l ar reas o n s, O CGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4 (b ) d o es n ot ap p ly b ecau s e

i t pro v i d es t h at :

[t ] h e co urt m ay as s es s reas o n ab le an d n eces s ary at t o rn ey ’ s fees an d

ex p en s es o f li t ig at i o n i n an y ci vi l act i o n i n an y co u rt o f reco rd i f, u p o n

t h e m o t i o n o f an y part y o r t h e co u rt i t s el f, i t fi n d s t h at an at t o rn ey o r

p art y b r o ug h t o r d

ef e n d ed a n a ct i o n

, o r a n

y p a r t t h er eo

f

, t h at l a cked

s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i

f i ca t io n o r t ha t t h e a ct i o n

, or an y p ar t t her eo

f

, wa s

i n t er p o s ed f o r d el a y o r h a r a s s men t

, o r i f i t f i n d s t h a t a n a t to r n ey o r

p a r t y u nn eces s a r i l

y exp a n d

ed t h e pr o ceed in g b

y o t h e r i mp r o

p er

co n d u ct

. . . . 1 0

Ag ai n

, Bro o k s d i d n o t d efen d ag ai n s t Hay d en ’ s p et i t i o n fo r a s t al k i n g p r o t ect i v e

o r d e r

. In s t ead

, sh e co n s en t ed to i t

. An d OCGA § 1 9-6 -2 i s l i k ewi s e i n ap p l i cab l e

b ecau s e i t au t h o ri z e s a t t o r n ey fees o n l y i n d i vo rce an d al i m o ny cas es

. 1 1 In s h o rt

,

1 0 (Em p has is s u pp l i ed ).

1 1 S ee OCGA § 1 9-6 -2 (a) (“ Th e g ran t o f at to rn ey ’ s fees as a p art o f t h e

ex p en s es o f li t i g at i o n

, m ad e at an y t i m e d u ri n g t h e pen d en cy o f t h e l it i gat i o n

, wh et h er

t h e act i o n i s fo r al im o ny

, d iv o r ce an d al i m o n y

, o r 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 i m o n y cas e o r a d i vo rce an d al im o n y cas e, in cl u d i ng b ut no t l i m i t e d to

co n tem p t o f co urt o rd ers i nv ol v i n g p r o p e rt y di v i s i on

, ch i l d cu st o d y

, an d ch i ld

v i s i t at i o n ri g h ts . . . .”).

7OCGA § 1 6 -5 -9 4 (d ) (3 ) ap p ears t o b e t h e o nl y at t o rn ey -fee s t at u t e t h at ap p l i es ; 1 2 an d

as a res u lt

, we n eed n o t rem an d t hi s c a s e to cl ari fy t h e s t a t u t o r y b a s i s fo r t h e fee

award

. 1 3

1 2 As m en t i o n ed s u

p ra

, Bro o k s h as n o t i d e n t i f ied a n y s p eci fi c s t at u t e u n d er

wh i ch at t o rn ey fees co ul d h av e b een award ed

. An d i t i s n o t t h e fu nct i on o f t h i s Co u rt

t o “ cu l l t h e reco rd o n be h a l f o f a p art y i n search o f i n s t an ces o f erro r.” Fl emi n g v.

Ad va n ced S t o r es Co

. , 3 0 1 Ga. Ap p

. 73 4

, 73 5 (6 8 8 SE2 d 4 1 4 ) (2 0 09 ) ( p u n c t u a t i o n

o m it t ed ) In s t ead

, t h e b u rd en i s “ u p o n t h e p ar t

y a l l eg i n g er ro r t o s h o w i t affi rm at i v el y

i n t h e reco rd .” Id

. (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ) (em ph as is s up p l i ed ). Th us

, we are u n d er n o

o b l i g at i o n t o ad d res s each an d ev e r y p o s s i b l e at t o rn ey -fee s t at u t e i n Geo rg i a to

d et erm i n e wh et h er i t m i gh t p o ss i b l y ap p l y i n t h i s cas e.

1 3 S e e Vi s ku p

, 2 9 1 G a. at 1 0 7 (3 ) (h o l di n g t h at rem an d fo r t h e t ri al co u rt to

cl ari fy t h e s t at u t ory b as i s fo r th e at t o rn ey -fee award was u n n eces sary wh en o n l y o n e

p o s s i b l e at t o rn ey -fee s tat u t e ap p l i ed ); S i mmo ns v. S i mmo n s

, 2 88 G a. 67 0

, 6 73 -7 4 (6 )

(7 0 6 SE2 d 4 5 6 ) ( 2 0 1 1 ) (co n cl u d i n g t h at

, bas ed o n a rev i ew o f t h e reco rd

, t h e

s t at u to ry b as i s fo r an at t o rn ey -fee award was no t i n q u es t i o n ev en t h o u g h t h e t ri al

co u rt di d n o t s t at e a s tat u t o ry bas i s fo r th e award ); Mo o r e v. Hu l la n d er

, 3 4 5 Ga. Ap p.

5 6 8

, 5 7 0 (2 ) (8 1 4 SE2 d 4 2 3 ) (2 0 1 8 ) (“ To d et erm i ne t h e s t at u t o ry b as i s fo r a t ri al

co u rt ’ s award o f at t o rn ey fees

, we l o o k to wh e t h e r t h e t ri al co urt ’ s o rd er ci t es a

s t a t u t o ry b as i s fo r t h e award o r t rack s an y s t at u to ry l an g u ag e, w h et h er t h e p art y

s eek i n g at t o rn ey fees s p eci fi ed t h e s t at u t o ry b as i s fo r award i n g t h e fees

, an d wh et h er

t h e r eco r d r evea l

s t h e b a s i s o

f t h e a wa r d .” (p u n ct u a t i o n o m i t ted ) (em p h as i s

s u p p li ed )). Cf

. Ca p it al Fl o o r

s

, LLC v. Fu r m a n

, 3 5 1 Ga. Ap p

. 58 9

, 5 9 8 -9 9 (5 ) ( 8 3 1

SE2 d 5 2 2 ) (2 0 19 ) (“ W h en t h ere i s mo r e th a n on e s t at u t ory b as i s fo r th e at t orn ey -fee

award an d n ei t h er th e s tat u t o ry b as i s f o r t h e award no r th e fi n d i n g s n eces s ary to

s u p p ort an award is s tat ed i n t h e o rd er an d a rev i ew o f t h e reco rd d o es n o t r evea l t h e

b as i s of t he award

, t h e cas e i s rem an d ed fo r an ex p l an at i o n o f t h e s t at u t o ry b as i s fo r

t h e award an d th e en t ry o f an y fi nd i n g s n e c es sary t o s u p p o rt i t .” (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ) (em

p h as i s s up p l i ed )).

8Nev ert h el es s

, in ad d i t i o n t o req u i ri n g a s t at u t ory b as i s fo r an award o f at t o rn ey

fees

, we h av e “ rep eat ed l y i n fo rm ed t ri al co u rt s t h at t hey m us t s et fo rt h fact u al s u p p o rt

fo r s u ch an award .” 1 4 An d as prev i o u s l y m en t i o n ed

, t h e tri al co u rt su m m ari l y g ran t ed

1 4 Ha l l

, 3 35 Ga. A p p. at 2 1 3 (2 ); see E ver s v. Ever s

, 2 7 7 Ga. 1 3 2

, 1 3 2 (2 ) (5 8 7

SE2 d 2 2 ) (2 0 0 3 ) (“ In o rd er t o award at to rn ey fees , a t ri al co u rt m u s t m ak e fi n d i ng s

o f fact an d co n cl u si o n s o f law w h i ch are s u ffi ci en t t o s u p po rt t h e award .”); Ra z a vi v.

Mer ch

., 3 3 0 Ga. Ap p

. 4 0 7

, 4 0 9 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( 7 6 5 SE2 d 47 9 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (“ W hen a tri al co u rt

d eci d es i n i ts d i s cret i on t o award at t o rn ey fees

, t h e o rd er m u s t co n t ai n ex p res s

fi nd i ng s o f fact an d co n cl u s i on s o f l aw as to t h e st at ut o ry bas i s fo r an y s u c h a w a r d

an d t h e co n d u ct wh i ch wo u l d au t h o ri ze i t .” (p u n ct u at i o n om i t ted )); In t h e In t er es t of

S er p en t f o o t

, 2 85 G a. Ap p

. 3 2 5, 3 2 9 (4 ) (a) (6 46 SE2 d 2 6 7

, 27 1 (2 0 0 7) (s am e); Bel l a h

v. Pet er s o n

, 2 5 9 Ga. Ap p

. 1 8 2

, 1 8 3 (2 ) (5 7 6 SE2 d 58 5 ) (2 0 0 3 ) (“ Th e l aw i s cl ear t h at

f i n d i n g s o f fact are req u i red wh en a t ri al co u rt gran t s an award o f at t o rn ey f e e s

. ” )

. Su ffi ce i t t o s ay

, OCGA § 1 6 -5 -9 4 (d ) (3 ) d iffers m at eri al l y fro m s tat u t es l i k e OCGA

§ 9 -1 5 -1 4

, wh i ch req u i res a t ri al co u rt t o i d en t i fy s p eci fi c co n d u ct an d m ak e d et ai l ed

fi nd i ng s n eces sary to ju s t i fy an award of at t orn ey fees

. In s t ark co n t ras t

, OCGA § 1 6

-

5 -9 4 (d ) (3 ) m erel y gran t s a t ri al co u rt t he d i s cret i o n t o award at t o rn ey fees an d co s t s

i n s t al k i ng cas es wi t h o ut an y g u i d an ce as t o t h e s p eci fi c fact u al fi n d in g s req u i red

. So

, wh at i s a t ri al c o u r t t o d o wi t h a s t at u t e th at i s s il en t o n th e ty p e o f fact ual fi n d i ng s

t h at are n eces s ary t o s u p p o rt an award o f at to rn ey fees ? In co n s i d eri n g t h i s q u es t i o n,

o u r an al y s i s i s g u i d ed by t h e ap p l i cab l e s t an dard o f rev i ew fo r an award of at t o rn ey

fees

. It i s wel l k n o wn t h at we rev i ew at t o rn ey -fee award s fo r an ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n.

S ee Ch a l k v. Po l et t o

, 3 4 6 Ga. Ap p

. 4 9 1

, 4 9 3 (8 1 6 SE2 d 4 32 ) (2 0 1 8 ) (“ W e rev i ew a

t ri al co u rt ’ s d eci s io n wh et h er t o a w a r d a t t orn ey fees fo r an ab u se o f d i s cret i o n .”);

Od u m v. Ru s s el l

, 34 2 Ga. Ap p

. 3 9 0

, 3 9 3 (2 ) (8 0 2 SE2 d 8 2 9) (2 0 17 ) (s am e); D e Lo u i s

v. S hep p a r d

, 2 7 7 Ga. Ap p

. 7 6 8

, 7 7 1 (2 ) (6 2 7 SE2 d 8 4 6 ) (2 00 6 ) (rev i ewi n g an

at t o rn ey fee award g ran t ed u n d e r O C G A § 1 6 -5 -9 4 fo r ab u se o f d i s cret i o n ). An d

b as ed o n t h e cas el aw no t ed s u p r a

, a t ri al co u rt ab us es i t s d i s cret i o n i f i t s award o f

at t o rn ey fees u n der OCGA § 1 6 -5 -9 4 (d ) (3 ) d o es n o t i n cl u d e a n y fact u al fi n d i n g s

. A t ri al co u rt m

u s t

, th en

, pro vi d e s o me fact u al fi nd i n g s ex p l ai n i n g wh y i t ch o s e t o

ex erci s e it s d i s cret i o n un d er t h e s t at u t e i n t h at cas e, wh i ch wi l l

, i n t u rn

, be affo rd ed

g reat d eferen ce b y t h e ap p el l at e co urt s

. Th u s

, wh i l e t h e fact u al fi n d i ng s neces s ary to

9at t o rn ey fees to Hay d en wi t h o u t p ro v i di n g an y fact u al b as i s t o s u pp o rt t h e award

. So

,

t h e award o f at to rn ey fees m u s t b e v acat ed an d th e cas e rem an d ed fo r an ex p l an at i o n

o f t h e u nd erl y i n g fact ual b as i s fo r an y s uch award

, as w el l as t h e act u al co s t s an d

reas on ab l en es s o f t h o s e fees

. 1 5

s u p p ort an at t o rn ey -fee award u nd er O C GA § 1 6 -5 -9 4 (d ) (3 ) m ay b e mi n i ma l

co m p ared t o t h e fi n d i ng s req u i red b y o t h er s tat u t es

, t h e tri al co u rt m u s t pro v i d e s o me

fact ual b as i s fo r i t s award

. A n d as no t ed i n fo o t n o t e 1 5

, fact u al fi n d in g s are al s o

req u i red t o es t ab l i s h t h at t h e am o u n t o f an at t o rn ey -fee award i s reas o n ab l e b ecau s e

“ an award o f at t o rn ey fees can n o t be b as ed u p o n g u es s wo rk o r s p ecu l at io n .” Leo n v.

Mo n t er r ey Mexi ca n Res t

. o f W i s e, In c

., 3 0 5 Ga. Ap p

. 2 2 2

, 2 2 8 (3 ) (6 9 9 SE2 d 4 2 3 )

(2 0 1 0).

1 5 S ee Gr a i l er v. Jo n es

, 3 4 9 Ga. Ap p

. 6 2 5

, 6 3 3 -3 4 (5 ) (8 2 4 SE2 d 1 1 8 ) (2 0 1 9 )

(v acat i ng an at t o rn ey -fee award an d rem an d i ng t h e cas e wh en

, in t er a l i a

, t h e t r i al

co u rt fai l ed t o m ak e “ neces sary fact u al fi n d i n g s ”); Ca mer o n v. M i l es

, 3 11 Ga. Ap p.

7 5 3

, 7 5 6 -5 7 (2 ) (7 16 SE2 d 8 3 1 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (v acat i n g a n at t o rn ey -fee award an d

r e m a n d i n g fo r fu rt her cl ari fi cat i o n wh en t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n ot pro v i de, in t er al i a

, fact ual bas is fo r t h e award ). Th e t ri al co u rt al s o erred b y fai l i n g t o ad d res s t h e act u al

co s t o f Hay d en ’ s at t o rn ey s fees

, as wel l as t h e reas o n ab l en es s o f t h o s e fees

. S ee S ims

v

. G

. T. A r ch i t ect u r e Co n t r a ct o r s Co r p

., 2 9 2 Ga. Ap p

. 9 4

, 96 (1 ) (6 63 SE 2 d 7 9 7 )

(2 0 0 8) (“ [A] n award o f at t o rn ey fees can n o t s t an d wh ere t he p l ai n ti ff fai l s t o p ro v e

t h e a ct u al co s t s o f hi s at t o rn ey s an d t h e reas o n ab len es s of t h o se co s t s .”);

Kwi cki e/ Fl a s h Fo o ds

, In c. v. La kes i d e Pe t r o l eu m

, In c.

, 2 5 6 G a. Ap p. 5 5 6

, 5 5 8 (2 )

(5 6 8 SE2 d 8 1 6 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (“ A n award o f at t o rn ey fees i s u n au th o ri zed i f ap pel l ee fai l ed

t o pro v e t h e act u al co s t s o f t h e at t o rn ey an d t h e reas o nab l en es s o f t h o se co s t s

. . . .A

p art y op p o s i n g a cl ai m fo r at t o rn ey fees has a b as ic ri g h t t o co nfro n t an d ch al l en g e

t es t i m o ny as t o t h e v al u e an d n eed fo r l e g al s erv i ces .” (p u n ct uat i o n an d fo o t n o t e

o m it t ed )); Ca nn on Ai r Tr a n s p

. S er vs

., In c. v. S t even s A vi a t i o n

, In c

., 2 4 9 Ga. Ap p.

5 1 4

, 5 1 8 (6 ) (5 4 8 SE2 d 48 5 ) (2 0 01 ) (“ An award o f at t o rn ey fees i s u n a u t h o ri zed i f

ap p el l ee fai l ed to p ro v e t h e act u al co s t s o f t h e at t o rn ey a n d t he reas o n ab l en es s o f

t h o s e co s t s

. . . . Ev en t h o u g h t e s t i m o n y fro m [t h e ap p el l ee’ s ] o wn at t o rn ey o n t h i s

10Fo r al l t h es e reas o n s

, we v acat e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s at t o rn ey -fee award i n fav o r o f

H ay d en an d rem an d t h e cas e t o t h e t ri al co u rt fo r p ro ceed i ng s co n s i st en t wi t h t h i s

o p i n i o n

.

Ju d g men t va ca t ed a n d ca s e r ema n d ed wi t h d i r ect i on

. Ri ckma n a n d Br o wn

, JJ.,

co n cu r

.

m at t er wo u l d hav e s u ffi ced

, [h e] m ad e n o effo rt t o i n t ro d u ce s u ch

. . . . Th i s g l ari n g

d efi c i e n c y i n t he reco rd req u i res t h i s Co u rt t o v acat e t he at t o rn ey fees award .”

(p u n ct u at i o n an d fo o tn o t es o m i t t ed )). On r e m a nd, t h e t ri al co urt s h o u ld h ear or rev i ew

ev i d en ce reg ard i n g t h e act u al co s t of Hay d en ’ s at t o rn ey fees

, an d t h en det erm i n e t h e

reas on ab l en es s o f t h e am o u n t o f an y fees award ed

.

11