Attorneys’ Fees
Attorneys’ Fees – Review of Amount Awarded
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Opinions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Thomas v. Ken Smith Auto Parts, No. E2022-00591-COA-R3-CV, p. 16-17 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2023).
“[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.” Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011) (citations omitted).
Teal Properties, Inc. v. Dog House Investments, LLC, No. M2022-00128-COA-R3-CV, p. 3-4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2023).
Because a trial court has the discretion to determine whether to award attorney’s fees, reviewing courts will uphold that determination unless it finds that the trial court has abused its discretion. Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011) (citing Kline v Eyrich, 69 S.W.3d 197, 203 (Tenn. 2002)). “Thus, reviewing courts will set aside a discretionary decision only when the court that made the decision applied incorrect legal standards, reached an illogical conclusion, based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tenn. 2008).
In Tennessee, there is no “fixed mathematical rule” for a court to determine what is reasonable. Wright, 337 S.W.3d at 176 (quoting Killingsworth v. Ted Russell Ford, Inc., 104 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009)). Ultimately, “the trial court’s determination of reasonable attorney’s fee is a ‘subjective judgment based on evidence and the experience of the trier of facts.’” Id. (quoting United Med. Corp. of Tenn., Inc. v. Hohenwald Bank & Trust Co., 703 S.W.2d 133, 137 (Tenn. 1986)). Accordingly, reviewing courts may not “merely substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” Myint v. Allstate Ins. Co., 970 S.W.2d 920, 927 (Tenn. 1998).
Buckley v. Carlock, No. M2019-02294-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2022).
A trial court enjoys “considerable discretion in determining a reasonable attorney’s fee.” First Peoples Bank of Tenn. v. Hill, 340 S.W.3d 398, 410 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). We will uphold the court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion. Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166, 176 (Tenn. 2011).
Nelson v. Justice, No. E2020-01172-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2022)
As our Supreme Court has previously explained concerning review of a trial court’s determination of a reasonable 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).
