Case Name: RILEY G. CARKEEK, dba SILVERTIP CONSTRUCTION CO., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EUGENE AYER, Defendant and Appelant, and SIMKINS-HALLIN, INC., Intervenor
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1980-07-23
Citations: 188 Mont. 345
Docket Number: No. 14976
Parties: RILEY G. CARKEEK, dba SILVERTIP CONSTRUCTION CO., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EUGENE AYER, Defendant and Appelant, and SIMKINS-HALLIN, INC., Intervenor.
Judges: MR. JUSTICE SHEEHY dissented and filed opinion.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 188
Pages: 345–350

Head Matter:
RILEY G. CARKEEK, dba SILVERTIP CONSTRUCTION CO., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EUGENE AYER, Defendant and Appelant, and SIMKINS-HALLIN, INC., Intervenor.
No. 14976.
Submitted on Briefs April 3, 1980.
Decided July 23, 1980.
Rehearing Denied August 6, 1980.
613 P2d. 1013.
MR. JUSTICE SHEEHY dissented and filed opinion.
Berg, Morgan, Coil & Stokes, Bozeman, for defendant and appellant.
Drysdale, McLean, Serenar & Cok, Bozeman, for plaintiff and respondent.

Opinion:
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HASWELL
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from an award of attorney fees by a property owner who successfully defended against an attempted mechanic's lien foreclosure.
Plaintiff Carkeek, the lienholder, sued defendant Ayer, the lienee, to foreclose a lien for $6,200 for labor and materials furnished in constructing two barns on the latter's property. The lienee resisted the attempted foreclosure and counterclaimed for approximately $6,000 damages for defective workmanship, ruined hay and other expenses.
Following a bench trial, the District Court entered judgment for the lienee on the attempted foreclosure, awarded him $3,311.50 damages on his counterclaim and granted him attorney fees and costs to be determined at an appropriate hearing. Following this hearing in which the lienee sought attorney fees of $5,773.20, the District Judge awarded him $3,000 attorney fees and $605.92 costs. The District Judge filed this memorandum accompanying his order:
"This Court is convinced that the attorney, Michael C. Coil, is entitled to Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per hour for attorney's fees; that he has spent a total of One Hundred Forty-four and thirty- three (144.33) hours in this cause, and his deduction of Ten Dollars ($10.00) per hour resulting in a fee of Forty Dollars ($40.00) per hour is most fair; that Five Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-three and 20/100 Dollars ($5,773.20) is a reasonable fee; however, the defendant (sic) in this cause has been almost helpless in this litigation through the continued delays and at least two attorneys. His first attorney, Mr. Tom Sabo, was not prompt or professional in his preparation of the case nor in his representation of plaintiff; this delay and confusion was almost beyond belief. The plaintiff is now faced with loss of his law suit.
"To now insist on the payment of attorney's fees of Five Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-three and 20/100 Dollars ($5,773.20) and his own attorney's fees would be most unreasonable."
The lienee appeals from the award of only $3,000 attorney fees, contending that he is entitled to $5,773.20, the amount the District Court found to be a reasonable fee.
A party who successfully defends against a foreclosure action must be allowed a reasonable attorney fee in both the District Court and the Supreme Court. Section 71-3-124, MCA. In determining what constitutes a "reasonable fee" in a given case, we have set down the following guidelines:
" '. . . The circumstances to be considered in determining the compensation to be recovered are the amount and character of the services rendered, the labor, time and trouble involved, the character and importance of the litigation in which the services were rendered, the amount of money or the value of property to be affected, the professional skill and experience called for, the character and standing in their profession of the attorneys . . . The result secured by the services of the attorneys may be considered as an important element in determining their value.' " First Security Bank v. Tholkes (1976), 169 Mont. 422, 429-30, 547 P.2d 1328, 1332.
Within these guidelines, the amount fixed as attorney fees is largely discretionary with the District Court. We will not disturb its judgement in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. We have previously stated the applicable principles in this language:
"This Court is well aware of its role when asked to look into matters of abuse of discretion of the trial court and we have noted the number of cases and other citations given us by the parties. We feel an approved composite position simply stated would be: a reviewing court is never justified in substituting its discretion for that of the trial court. In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, the question is not whether the reviewing court agrees with the trial court, but rather did the trial court in the exercise of its discretion act arbitrarily without the employment of conscientious judgment or exceed the bounds of reason, in view of all the circumstances, ignoring recognized principles resulting in substantial injustice." Porter v. Porter (1970), 155 Mont. 451, 457, 473 P.2d 538, 541.
We note that a reasonable attorney fee must be awarded for the successful defense of the foreclosure action by virtue of section 71-3-124, MCA. There is no statutory provision for an award of attorney fees in successfully prosecuting the counterclaim for damages. .Costs are recoverable on the counterclaim, sections 25-10-101(3), 25-10-102, and 25-10-201, MCA; but attorney fees are not recoverable costs in the absence of statute or contractual agreement of the parties. Winer v. Jonal Corp. (1976), 169 Mont. 247, 545 P.2d 1094, and cases therein cited.
Applying the foregoing principles to this case, we cannot say that the District Court abused its discretion in reducing the lienee's claim for attorney fees from $5,773.20 to $3,000. A reasonable attorney fee in a given case does not necessarily result from simple multiplication of the hours spent times a fixed hourly rate. To award an attorneys fee of $5,773.20 in defending against a $6,200 claim would appear most unreasonable regardless of the time spent, the skill involved in the work, the experience of the attorney and similar considerations. The defense simply is not worth a fee approaching 100% of the amount of the lien.
We interpret the District Court's memorandum as saying that while a fee of $5,773.20 is fair and reasonable, it would be unreasonable to assess this entire amount against the lienholder under the circumstances of this case. We agree. We find no abuse of discretion by the District Court.
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICES DALY, HARRISON and SHEA concur.