Opinion ID: 1207558
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Basis for assessing attorney's fees.

Text: The following table represents the judgment ordered below: Principal amount of note due at time of suit ............ $18,486.94 Interest to date of judgment ............................ 3,751.07 Court costs ............................................. 120.00 Attorney's fees assessed against all defendants ......... 4,469.04 __________ SUB-TOTAL ........................ $26,827.05 Credited payments allowed ............................... 8,485.86 __________ TOTAL JUDGMENT ................... $18,341.19 Appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing attorney's fees in excess of the statutory limit of 25% under HRS § 607-17. [1] He believes that the trial court should first credit the amounts already paid on the note pending judgment before adding on court costs and attorney's fees. His figures would read: Principal due .................................. $18,486.94 Interest to date of judgment ................... 3,751.07 __________ SUB-TOTAL ............. $22,238.01 Credited payments .............................. 8,485.86 __________ BASIS FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES ........... $13,752.15 Twenty-five per cent of the above amount is $3,438.04, or about a thousand dollars less than the amount assessed by the court. Appellees contend, however, that the fees should be based upon the principal amount sued for plus interest ($22,238.01) prior to any credits. This would bring the maximum allowable to $5,559.50. We agree with appellees because the legislative intent of the law in question has been stated to be: (a) that the fee that can be collected as an attorney's fee or collection fee in a contested action shall be no more than twenty-five percent of the debt. 1959 House Journal 617. Cases in this jurisdiction have held debt to mean all that is due to a man under any form of obligation or promise.    Kerr v. Hyman Brothers, 6 Haw. 308, 309 (1882); accord, Henriques v. Vinhaca, 20 Haw. 702, 709 (1911). We are cognizant that the guaranty contains the following promise: [T]he undersigned jointly and severally hereby guarantee unconditionally    to pay all costs and expenses including reasonable attorney fees in the collection of any indebtedness or obligation hereby guaranteed. To us, this refers to the costs of collection of the total amount due at the time suit is initiated, plus interest upon that amount at the time the fees are assessed. Fairness mandates that a defendant pay for an attorney's efforts in reducing the amount of the indebtedness sued upon. This would include fees in related collection proceedings, such as garnishment and bankruptcy. Naturally, the trial court should consider any attorney's fees already obtained in the ancillary proceedings. We have examined the record and find no abuse of discretion in the determination of attorney's fees by the trial court. We have also examined appellant's remaining claims as to prejudice due to violations of Rule 5 of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure and find they are without merit. Affirmed.