Opinion ID: 6105184
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2018 BCD Combined Judgment and Appeal

Text: [¶3] The facts of the dispute underlying this case are fully set forth in Fortney & Weygandt, Inc. v. Lewiston DMEP IX, LLC, 2019 ME 175, 222 A.3d 613, and are summarized here. F&W served as general contractor in the construction of five Dollar General stores in three Maine counties pursuant to contracts with GBT. In 2015, F&W filed three separate complaints against GBT in the Superior Court (Kennebec, Androscoggin, and Oxford Counties), seeking 3 enforcement of mechanic’s liens and asserting claims for breach of contract and violations of the prompt payment statute with respect to the parties’ contracts. [¶4] The lawsuits arose after GBT failed to pay amounts owed to F&W under the construction contracts. GBT counterclaimed for liquidated damages and breaches of contract, alleging that F&W’s work was incomplete or defective. Because GBT had stopped payment to F&W, F&W in turn ceased payments to its subcontractors, which resulted in the subcontractors initiating eighteen separate lawsuits to collect the funds owed to them by F&W. F&W’s claims against GBT, GBT’s counterclaims, and the claims, counterclaims, and crossclaims in the subcontractor suits were transferred and consolidated under three docket numbers in the BCD. [¶5] During the pendency of the lawsuits, all claims involving the subcontractors were settled. With regard to the claims between F&W and GBT, the court entered partial summary judgment in favor of F&W on its claims for breach of contract and on portions of GBT’s counterclaims. Following a nine-day bench trial—where the parties presented “many witnesses and a mountain of documentary exhibits”—and review of post-trial briefs, the court issued a fifty-eight-page combined judgment with detailed findings on August 9, 2018. Id. ¶ 11. 4 [¶6] In its judgment, the court concluded that F&W was entitled to (1) a judgment in its favor on GBT’s counterclaims for liquidated damages based on the affirmative defenses of waiver and equitable estoppel; (2) penalties, interest, and attorney fees under the prompt payment statute;3 and (3) a judgment in its favor on the remainder of GBT’s counterclaims alleging incomplete or defective work.4 The court later clarified that F&W was entitled to attorney fees not only pursuant to the prompt payment statute but also under the terms of the parties’ contracts. [¶7] GBT appealed several of the court’s rulings, and we largely affirmed the judgment but vacated a portion of the judgment and remanded the matter for a reconsideration of F&W’s prompt payment remedies.5 Id. ¶¶ 1, 37. On 3 With respect to F&W’s prompt payment claims, the court found that (1) F&W performed in accordance with the contracts; (2) GBT did not provide notice and an opportunity for F&W to cure any purported defects; (3) GBT did not establish that F&W had actual notice of any purported defects; (4) the funds GBT withheld were not equal to or in reasonable relation to the value of GBT’s claims against F&W and (5) GBT’s claims relating to incomplete or defective work could not have been asserted in good faith. 4This judgment left F&W’s mechanic’s lien claims unresolved, but those counts were dismissed during the pendency of the first appeal of this case, discussed infra at ¶ 7. 5 Specifically, we affirmed the judgment for F&W on GBT’s counterclaims for liquidated damages and affirmed the award to F&W of prompt payment remedies, except to the extent that the court’s remedy “failed to account for the value of GBT’s liquidated damages claims that the court found GBT withheld in good faith” pursuant to 10 M.R.S. § 1118(1) and (3) (2021). Fortney & Weygandt, Inc. v. Lewiston DMEP IX, LLC, 2019 ME 175, ¶¶ 1, 32-33, 37, 222 A.3d 613. We also vacated the portion of the judgment allowing F&W to recover attorney fees under the parties’ contracts, explaining that “[t]his, however, does not affect the court’s determination that F&W[] is entitled to its attorney fees and costs pursuant” to the prompt payment statute, and left “the court to assess attorney fees and costs only as allowed by the prompt payment statute[].” Id. ¶¶ 1, 36-37. 5 June 18, 2020, the court entered a stipulated final judgment on remand by agreement of the parties. The judgment modified the amount of damages awarded to F&W and stated that “F&W’s attorney fees and expenses shall be determined in a post-judgment petition pursuant to, and in accordance with, the Prompt Payment Act, 10 M.R.S.A. § 1118(4).” B. Award of Attorney Fees and Expenses in Post-Judgment Petition [¶8] F&W submitted two applications for attorney fees and expenses. In one application, F&W requested $635,522.25 in attorney fees and $8,028.71 in expenses incurred by Fortney & Klingshirn, Fortney Law Group, Stark & Knoll Co., LPA, and Pierce Atwood LLP, as well as expenses of $38,164.34 that F&W directly incurred.6 In the other application, F&W requested $306,447.50 in attorney fees and $7,403.33 in expenses incurred by F&W’s insurance counsel, Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, LLC (NHD). Both applications contained supporting affidavits with exhibits, including copies of invoices. [¶9] GBT opposed the applications, objecting to almost three-quarters of the requested amounts, arguing that any award must compensate F&W for attorney fees and expenses incurred solely for legal work performed in prosecuting F&W’s prompt payment claims. GBT argued that the following F&W did not seek reimbursement for $24,391 billed for “time not factually related to claims 6 involving GBT’s refusal to pay F&W.” 6 categories of fees were not awardable under the prompt payment statute: (1) work performed addressing GBT’s counterclaims and F&W’s claims not brought under the prompt payment statute; (2) NHD’s work as insurance counsel defending against GBT’s counterclaims; (3) work related to litigation with subcontractors; and (4) work opposing GBT’s appeal.7 Finally, GBT argued that F&W did not meet its burden to prove entitlement to a significant portion of the attorney fees sought and did not exercise billing judgment.8 [¶10] On December 18, 2020, the court issued a judgment granting all of F&W’s requested attorney fees and expenses. The following facts are taken from the court’s judgment and are based on competent evidence in the record. See Sweet v. Breivogel, 2019 ME 18, ¶¶ 2, 23, 201 A.3d 1215. The court examined the record and determined that the claims represented in the applications shared a “common core of facts” and were not easily separable: The facts generated and arguments asserted by both parties about the requirements of the contract were inextricably interwoven with the allegations made by both parties about the PPA claims. Under the PPA, [F&W was] also required to defeat claims that it or another party was responsible for any “unsatisfactory job progress, defective construction or materials, disputed work or 3rd-party 7GBT stated that it had conducted a line-by-line review of the legal invoices submitted in both fee applications and categorized every contested entry with a series of code numbers. GBT submitted an affidavit describing the coding process and exhibits, including spreadsheets, listing the allegedly objectionable entries. 8GBT argued, for example, that the invoices had too many redactions, were related to clerical tasks or overhead, were duplicative or vague, or reflected excessive time and overstaffing. 7 claims.” 10 M.R.S. § 1118(1). This meant, as [F&W] points out, that [F&W] had to successfully defend against any counterclaims made by [GBT]. The court thus determined that because F&W was the substantially prevailing party under the prompt payment statute, F&W was entitled to fees for time spent addressing its claims for breach of contract and GBT’s counterclaims. Furthermore, the court found that NHD’s fees were awardable because prohibiting “an insured litigant from seeking an award of attorney[] fees would violate” the prompt payment statute’s aim of deterring owners from failing to pay on time. Finally, the court rejected GBT’s categorical exclusion of entries relating to subcontractor claims, explaining that the settlement of those claims simplified the issues at trial and decreased GBT’s exposure to additional fees and interest. [¶11] The court, after having reviewed the fee applications and all attachments, and applying the “Johnson factors” as summarized in Sweet, 2019 ME 18, ¶ 25 n.4, 201 A.3d 1215,9 determined that F&W’s requested fees were 9 The Johnson factors are a list of twelve factors that courts consider when determining whether an attorney fee request is reasonable. See Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974); Gould v. A-1 Auto, Inc., 2008 ME 65, ¶ 13, 945 A.2d 1225. We adopted a list of factors based on Johnson, stated in Sweet as “(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented; (3) the skill required to perform the legal services; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorneys due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee in the community; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed by client or circumstances; (8) the degree of success; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with 8 reasonable.10 The court also concluded that the redacted fee entries remained sufficiently detailed to determine the work’s subject matter and that those services were provided as claimed. On January 4, 2021, the court also awarded F&W the fees and expenses incurred in litigating the fee applications, based on F&W’s two supplemental applications and affidavits.11 GBT timely appeals from the judgment.