Opinion ID: 2622669
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Attorney Fees Due to Defective Allocation Documentation

Text: ¶131 The second issue on cross-appealthe issue of attorney fees for compensable and noncompensable claimswas meticulously addressed in two of the trial court's rulings. In July 2001, the court notified Dr. Jensen that his claims had failed to adequately apportion between compensable (i.e., Title 76 and common law intrusion upon seclusion claims), and noncompensable claims. The court invited plaintiff's counsel to supplement their affidavits by separating out the work into three categories: (1) work that pertains specifically to Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-9-401 to -406; (2) work that specifically pertains to common law intrusion upon seclusion; and (3) work on any other claim. With regard to fees of mixed character, plaintiff was to break out (1) what percentage of each billing entry went to support common law intrusion upon seclusion claims, and (2) what percentage went to support Title 76 claims. All other work was deemed to have been done on noncompensable claims. The court stated that failure to adequately separate noncompensable and compensable claims may result in denial of any other fees for the commingled entry. ¶132 In the trial court's second ruling on this matter, it correctly explained that for it to award attorney fees, it must first review all the evidence and make specific findings of fact. Further, the party requesting the attorney fees must categorize the time and fees expended for (1) successful claims for which there may be an entitlement to attorney fees, (2) unsuccessful claims for which there may be an entitlement to attorney fees had the claims been successful, and (3) claims for which there is no entitlement to attorney fees. Foote v. Clark, 962 P.2d 52, 54 (Utah 1998) (quoting Cottonwood Mall Co. v. Sine, 830 P.2d 266, 268 (Utah 1992)). Noncompliance with these requirements makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the trial court to award the moving party fees because there is insufficient evidence to support the award. ¶133 The trial court noted the extensive work and research conducted in preparation for this case. The court also acknowledged that the attorneys' affidavits did reflect the amount of work necessary to mount the case. The court found that Attorney Gardiner adequately, but not exactly, complied with the attorney fees documenting his time spent on compensable claims. However, Attorney Sine did not. Mr. Sine told the court it was impossible for him to separate his time and merely separated the time into two columns  one compensable and the other noncompensable. As a result, the trial court found it had previously warned counsel in the July order of the importance of adequate separation of the claims, yet again Mr. Sine did not give [the court] sufficient evidence to determine how much time he spent on compensable claims and because the amount of time he claimed to have spent on the compensable claims is unreasonable, this [c]ourt cannot make an appropriate evaluation. ¶134 Mr. Sine presents one sentence for our consideration of his argument on appeal. He writes: If the court closely examines Attorney Sine's submissions, it will see the criteria for fees was met. This is inadequate and does not provide sufficient legal reason for us to override the discretion of the trial court which had the ability to twice review the documentation on this issue. Affirmed.