FLEIG v. LANDMARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP
2024 OK 25 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court order awarding attorney fees must set forth with specificity the facts and computations used to support the award, including findings on hours spent, reasonable hourly rates, and the value of any additional factors. This judicial duty cannot be waived by the parties' agreement to forgo a detailed analysis.
Facts:
- In July 2010, homeowners contracted with Landmark Construction Group, Inc. (Landmark) to replace a hail-damaged roof on their home.
- The homeowners were simultaneously negotiating to sell the house to Carl Fleig, whose mortgage company required a new roof for the purchase.
- Landmark replaced the roof in August 2010.
- By July 2011, after Fleig had purchased the home, the new roof leaked, causing $3,922.51 in damage to the interior and exterior.
- Landmark refused to address the leaks, asserting that any warranty given to the prior homeowners did not transfer to Fleig.
- Fleig paid another contractor to repair the roof and sought reimbursement from Landmark for the interior damage.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 19, 2011, Carl Fleig sued Landmark Construction Group in trial court.
- Following a bench trial, the court granted a directed verdict for Landmark and later awarded Landmark $5,000 in attorney fees.
- Fleig, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed the trial court.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the appellate opinion, and remanded for a new trial.
- After a second bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment of $2,725.00 against Landmark.
- Fleig, as appellant, appealed the judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Landmark.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court denied Fleig's subsequent petition for certiorari.
- Landmark filed a motion in the trial court for attorney fees, and on February 24, 2021, the trial court awarded Landmark $51,331.50.
- Fleig, as appellant, appealed the attorney fee award to the Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's award.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the attorney fee award.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's order awarding attorney fees comply with the mandatory directives of State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City if the order fails to set forth with specificity the facts and computation supporting the award, even when the parties state they only want a final 'number'?
Opinions:
Majority - Kauger, J.
No. A trial court's order awarding attorney fees does not comply with mandatory precedent if it fails to set forth with specificity the facts and computation supporting the award. The court's precedent in State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City requires trial courts to make specific findings of fact on the record regarding the hours spent, reasonable hourly rates, and the value placed on any additional factors considered in calculating the fee. This requirement is essential for appellate review under the abuse of discretion standard. The parties cannot relieve the court of this duty by agreeing to receive just a final 'number,' as the court's failure to follow the Burk directives constitutes reversible error, as established in Spencer v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company. Because the trial court's order lacked the required specificity and factual findings, it constituted an abuse of discretion and must be reversed and remanded.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the procedural mandates for awarding attorney fees established in State ex rel. Burk. It clarifies that these requirements are not merely procedural guidelines but are a non-waivable duty of the trial court, essential for meaningful appellate review. The ruling effectively prohibits parties from stipulating to an abbreviated or conclusory fee order, thereby ensuring transparency and accountability in the fee-setting process. This precedent will compel trial judges in Oklahoma to be more diligent and detailed in their attorney fee orders, creating a clearer record and potentially reducing appeals based on insufficient justification for the amount awarded.
