Opinion ID: 2364360
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Procedural Means to Request Attorneys' Fees

Text: The defendants argue that they were blindsided by the procedural means Keystone used to request attorneys' fees. In lieu of closing arguments, the trial justice requested counsel to submit memoranda within ten days. Along with its memorandum, Keystone submitted to the court an attorney's affidavit supporting the reasonableness of its fees. The defendants submitted their joint memorandum on the same day; no objection to the fee request was included. Thus, they maintain, they were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the attorney or adequately oppose the request before the trial justice issued her written decision. Keystone asserts that it was not required to file a separate motion for attorneys' fees because the original petition included a demand for costs and attorneys' fees. Additionally, Keystone had objected to the initial bond amount because it did not include monies for attorneys' fees and costs. The amount of the bond was increased thereafter to cover attorneys' fees and costs. Keystone further argues that defendants had ample opportunity to object to the request for fees, but chose not to do so, and were, in fact, afforded a hearing on their motion to reconsider. We conclude that defendants were on sufficient notice that the issue of attorneys' fees was being considered by the trial justice and that they indeed had occasion to object. We first observe that Keystone filed its post-trial memorandum, which included the affidavit, on October 15, 2001, a full three months before the trial justice issued her written decision. Secondly, the trial justice did have an opportunity to consider defendants' objections on their motion to reconsider. She ruled, however, that defendants have explained neither the alleged injustice resulting from the January 17, 2002 Decision nor the extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify relief. The better practice for requesting attorneys' fees under the mechanics' lien statute is to submit a motion therefor after the underlying issues have been determined. However, in this case we are confident that, were we to remand the case on this issue, the outcome would be the same. Because we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial justice, we affirm the denial of defendants' motion to reconsider.