Opinion ID: 2445003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Hamilton's and Tillery's Cases

Text: The Circuit Court for Harford County used a similar approach in addressing Hamilton's and Tillery's cases. In Tillery's case, the court explicitly rejected the application of an arbitrary 15% of principal sought as a reasonable fee award. It appropriately recognized that the error in this approach lay in the automatic application of that percentage, or indeed of any percentage, without a substantive inquiry into the appropriateness of those awards in the cases at bar. [14] [15] Instead, the court considered the services performed by the law firm, which were described on an exhibit offered by the Association as follows: ------------------------------------------------------- Attorney's Fees, Other Costs, and Court Costs ------------------------------------------------------- $ 50.00 Balance Due Letter (4/19/08) ------------------------------------------------------- $ 75.00 Settle Letter (7/24/08) ------------------------------------------------------- $100.00 (1.0) Paralegal Trial Preparation (7/31/08) ------------------------------------------------------- $210.00 (1.0) EKF Trial Preparation (7/31/08) ------------------------------------------------------- $378.00 (1.8) EKF Attend Trial (8/1/08) ------------------------------------------------------- $813.00 Total ------------------------------------------------------- These charges included and ended with the 1.8 hours that an attorney spent at the District Court trial, at which Mr. Tillery appeared. The court awarded the fees shown in this exhibit, but declined to award the fees requested by the Association for legal work after that point. The court explained that it's always been my position that reasonable fees are those fees which are, given the nature of the services rendered, the degree of skill, and a whole bunch of other factors ... appropriate. We reject the Associations's argument, relying on Friolo, that the Circuit Court erred in declining to award fees in connection with its appeals to that court. Although we held in Friolo that in performing a lodestar analysis on remand, the trial court must consider appellate fees incurred in successfully challenging the original fee award, we reiterate that this case does not call for the lodestar method. It does not involve a fee-shifting statute, which is enacted to ensure that individuals, when injured by violations ... of certain laws, have access to legal counsel.... Friolo v. Frankel, 403 Md. 443, 457, 942 A.2d 1242, 1250 (2008) ( Friolo II ). Thus, the policy reasons for encouraging appeals of inadequate fee awards are not applicable. Of course, a circuit court, in its discretion, may award fees incurred in an appeal challenging a district court's fee award. Hamilton's case followed much the same trajectory as Tillery's case, although the Circuit Court was more terse in its explanation. [16] In Hamilton's case, Nagle & Zaller claimed $3,280 in attorneys' fees, but the court awarded only $1,345, saying: My ruling will be the same. I will award the total amount of principle [sic], the cost of collection, the interest owed, and total court costs, and the attorney fees reduced by the amount you claim to be due on appeal.... Calculated total attorneys' fees due are $1,345, which I find are reasonable. [17] The court declined to award the balance of the fees requested, which represented charges for the de novo appeal. [18] Again, the Circuit Court may have decided that the $1,345 was sufficient compensation for this suit involving only $808 in overdue assessments, given that the record reflects that Hamilton mounted no defense. We hold that the Circuit Court for Harford County properly emphasized the reasonableness of a fee award in making its decisions in both the Tillery and Hamilton cases, while correctly eschewing the lodestar method. The court acted within its discretion.