Attorneys’ Fees – Recoverability Under Statute

Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.

Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court

Milan Supply Chain Solutions F/K/A Milan Express, Inc., v. Navistar, Inc.,  No. W2018-00084-SC-R11-CV, 627 S.W.3d 125, 141 (Tenn. 2021).

This [abuse of discretion] standard … applies to our review of Milan’s claim that the trial court erred in awarding Volunteer attorney’s fees under the TCPA. Taylor v. Harris, No. M2008-01579-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 2971047, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2009).

An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court “applies an incorrect legal standard, or reaches a decision which is against logic or reasoning that causes an injustice to the party complaining.” Borne v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 532 S.W.3d 274, 294 (Tenn. 2017) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); see also Herron, 461 S.W.3d at 904.

New v. Dumitrache, No. W2017-00776-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. June 29, 2020).

De novo review also applies to our determination of whether any statute authorized the chancery court to award Mother attorney’s fees. State v. Thompson, 197 S.W.3d 685, 690 (Tenn. 2006) (citations omitted).

Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals

The Wise Group, Inc. v. Holland, No. M2020-01646-COA-R3-CV, p. 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2023).

Robinson v. City of Clarksville, Tennessee, No. M2019-02053-COA-R3-CV, p. 33-34 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2023).

Colley v. Colley, No. M2021-00731-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2022).

As noted above, Wife’s claim for attorney’s fees alternatively rests on statutory and contractual grounds. Both the interpretation of statutes and the interpretation of contracts are questions of law and, therefore, require a de novo review on appeal with no presumption of correctness given to the trial court’s conclusions of law. See State v. Williams, 38 S.W.3d 532, 535 (Tenn. 2001) (indicating that the construction of statutes and the application of the law to the facts are questions of law); see also Guiliano v. Cleo, Inc., 995 S.W.2d 88, 95 (Tenn. 1999) (holding that “[t]he interpretation of a contract is a matter of law that requires a de novo review on appeal”).

Smith v. All Nations Church of God, No. W2021-00846-COA-R3-CV, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2022).

Once the trial court has followed the appropriate procedure to determine a reasonable fee, our review is limited:

The trial court’s determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee is “subjective judgment based on evidence and the experience of the trier of facts,” United Med. Corp. of Tenn., Inc. v. Hohenwald Bank & Tr. Co., 703 S.W.2d 133, 137 (Tenn. 1986), and Tennessee has “no fixed mathematical rule” for determining what a reasonable fee is. Killingsworth v. Ted Russell Ford, Inc., 104 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). Accordingly, a determination of attorney’s fees is within the discretion of the trial court and will be upheld unless the trial court abuses its discretion. Kline v. Eyrich, 69 S.W.3d 197, 203 (Tenn. 2002); Shamblin v. Sylvester, 304 S.W.3d 320, 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). We presume that the trial court’s discretionary decision is correct, and we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision. Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tenn. 2010); Keisling v. Keisling, 196 S.W.3d 703, 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011). But see

The abuse of discretion standard does not substitute the appellate court’s judgment for that of the trial court. Id. (citing Williams v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. 2006); Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 927 (Tenn. 1998)). Rather, “[a] court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Fisher v. Hargett, 604 S.W.3d 381, 395 (Tenn. 2020).

Thomson v. Genesis Diamonds, LLC, No. M2021-00634-COA-R3-CV, p. 9-10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2022).

An award of attorney’s fees under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-12-119(c) is mandatory upon a trial court’s granting of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Irvin v. Green Wise Homes, LLC, No. M2019-02232-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 709782, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2021), perm. app. denied (Tenn. June 9, 2021). In such a case, the trial court does not have the discretion to deny an award of attorney’s fees if a Rule 12.02(6) motion is granted, except in specific situations enumerated in section 20-12-119(c)(5).2 Id. However, that award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party must be “reasonable and necessary” fees that were “incurred in the proceedings as a consequence of the dismissed claims.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-12-119(c) (2021).

Our Supreme Court has stated as follows regarding the amount of an award of attorney’s fees:

The trial court’s determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee is “a subjective judgment based on evidence and the experience of the trier of facts,” United Med. Corp. of Tenn., Inc. v. Hohenwald Bank & Trust Co., 703 S.W.2d 133, 137 (Tenn. 1986), and Tennessee has “no fixed mathematical rule” for determining what a reasonable fee is. Killingsworth v. Ted Russell Ford, Inc., 104 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). Accordingly, a determination of attorney’s fees is within the discretion of the trial court and will be upheld unless the trial court abuses its discretion. Kline v. Eyrich, 69 S.W.3d 197, 203 (Tenn. 2002); Shamblin v. Sylvester, 304 S.W.3d 320, 331 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). We presume that the trial court’s discretionary decision is correct, and we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision. Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tenn. 2010); Keisling v. Keisling, 196 S.W.3d 703, 726 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). The abuse of discretion standard does not allow the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, Williams v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. 2006); Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 927 (Tenn. 1998), and we will find an abuse of discretion only if the court “applied incorrect legal standards, reached an illogical conclusion, based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employ[ed] reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” Konvalinka v. Chattanooga–Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tenn. 2008); see also Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010).

Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011).

West v. Akard, No. E2021-00962-COA-R3-CV, p. 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2022).

Litigants are generally required to pay their own attorney fees unless a statute or contract provision provides otherwise. John Kohl & Co. P.C. v. Dearborn & Ewing, 977 S.W.2d 528, 534 (Tenn. 1998). According to Tenants, this appeal was frivolous so they are entitled to an award of their attorney fees under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-1-122. That statute provides as follows:

When it appears to any reviewing court that the appeal from any court of record was frivolous or taken solely for delay, the court may, either upon motion of a party or of its own motion, award just damages against the appellant, which may include, but need not be limited to, costs, interest on the judgment, and expenses incurred by the appellee as a result of the appeal.

Tenn. Code Ann. 27-1-122. The statute “‘must be interpreted and applied strictly so as not to discourage legitimate appeals.’” Wakefield v. Longmire, 54 S.W.3d 300, 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Davis v. Gulf Ins. Grp., 546 S.W.2d 583, 586 (Tenn. 1977)). A frivolous appeal is one that “is devoid of merit or . . . has no reasonable chance of success.”

Frontz v. Hall, No. E2021-00154-COA-R3-CV, p. 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 15, 2022).

“[A] determination of attorney’s fees is within the discretion of the trial court.” Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011). “Consequently, a trial court’s award of fees will be upheld unless it has abused its discretion, ‘meaning that it either applied an incorrect legal standard or reached a clearly unreasonable decision’resulting in an injustice.” House v. Estate of Edmondson, 245 S.W.3d 372, 378 (Tenn. 2008) (quoting Kline v. Eyrich, 69 S.W.3d 197, 203-04 (Tenn. 2002)). “We presume that the trial court’s discretionary decision is correct, and we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision.” Wright, 337 S.W.3d at 176 (citing Henderson v. SAIA, Inc., 318 S.W.3d 328, 335 (Tenn. 2010)).