Opinion ID: 883983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Unrelated Matters

Text: Custom Framing contends that the District Court abused its discretion in awarding Puckett Construction attorney's fees for disputes that arose during the course of construction that are unrelated to [this case]. This contention relates to three specific entries contained in Brown's listing of time charges. First, Custom Framing challenges .75 hours charged on June 10, 1994, for a [c]onference w/Ken Cavenah and Phil Puckett re: construction dispute. Brown testified that all of the entries were attributable to Puckett Construction's dispute with Custom Framing. Pohl testified that he had no reason to believe that the.75 hour conference was unrelated to this case. Custom Framing did not inquire of Brown about this conference on cross-examination and did not present any evidence in support of its contention that the conference was unrelated to this case. Second, Custom Framing challenges .50 hours charged on April 13, 1995, for drafting and revising a letter to Puckett regarding status and delinquent accounts. Custom Framing contends that the purpose of this letter was to collect money owed to Brown by Puckett and, therefore, the time Brown spent on the letter cannot properly be included in the court's award of attorney's fees. However, Custom Framing did not ask Brown about this letter on cross-examination and Pohl testified that this was a proper charge because it does say status also, and Mr. Brown apparently wrote [Puckett] a letter to let him know where he was in the case. Third, Custom Framing challenges .50 hours charged on May 3, 1995, for telephone conferences with Rick Nellen (Nellen) and Calvin Braaksma (Braaksma). Brown testified that both telephone conferences related to this case. Regarding the Nellen conference, Brown explained that Nellen represented Cavenah in a dispute which had arisen between Cavenah and Puckett and which resulted in concerns about whether Cavenah would testify on Puckett Construction's behalf in this case; according to Brown, his discussion with Nellen on May 3 resolved the matter. Brown also explained that Braaksma represented a party with a pending foreclosure action against the Ramada Inn and that he and Braaksma discussed how Braaksma's client's interests could or would be affected by the litigation between Puckett Construction and Custom Framing. Again, Custom Framing presented no evidence indicating that the time charged for these two telephone conferences was unrelated to this case.