Southern Cellular v. Banks

58 Citing cases

  1. Mitcham v. Blalock

    447 S.E.2d 83 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 37 times
    Remanding for a hearing to address a claim for fees pursuant to OCGA § 9–11–37 for discovery abuses

    (Cit.)' Fiat Auto U.S.A. v. Hollums, 185 Ga. App. 113, 116 (5) ( 363 S.E.2d 312) (1987)." Southern Cellular Telecom v. Banks, 209 Ga. App. 401, 402 ( 433 S.E.2d 606). In the case sub judice, defendant Ingram submitted billing sheets sent to him by his attorney with the affidavit of his attorney, Michael K. Wolensky, in support of his claim for attorney fees. Attorney Wolensky deposed that 13.5 hours of services provided by two attorneys and a paralegal were reasonably worth $1,286.25 and that these services were necessary to press a motion to compel on behalf of defendant Ingram. Attorney Wolensky then deposed that he expended a quarter of an hour (at a rate of $205 per hour) reviewing the motion to compel and he enumerates in his affidavit billings allegedly entered by an "Associate" (11.25 hours at $100 per hour) and a "Paralegal" (2 hours at $55 per hour) in executing the motion to compel.

  2. The Southern Co. v. Hamburg

    503 S.E.2d 383 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 8 times
    In Southern Co., we reversed the trial court's reentry of an award of attorney fees and expenses of litigation based on an evidentiary proffer of billing sheets, expense reports and summaries.

    The only remaining issue, then, is Hamburg's contention that the trial court erred in failing to allow him to proffer additional evidence supporting his claim for attorney fees and expenses of litigation. To this extent, we find it sufficient to restate our prior citation to Southern Cellular Telecom v. Banks, 209 Ga. App. 401 ( 433 S.E.2d 606), and direct the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to establish the amount of attorney fees and expenses of litigation attributable to probative evidence offered at the hearing. But the trial court's concern over the basis of this Court's holding in Southern Co. v. Hamburg, 220 Ga. App. 834, 842 (5), supra, appears to require more than our prior citation to Southern Cellular Telecom v. Banks, 209 Ga. App. 401, supra.

  3. Schluter v. Perrie, Buker, Stagg & Jones, P.C.

    230 Ga. App. 776 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 12 times
    Stating that where a contract is unambiguous, parol evidence is inadmissible

    This exhibit includes billing sheets comprising lists of John Schluter's unpaid expenses and vaguely annotated time entries reflecting time for work allegedly performed by attorney Jones and an associate attorney, who is identified in the firm's billing sheets as "CVS." The problem with the firm's proffer is that, absent an opportunity for John Schluter to test the reporting attorneys' entries via cross-examination ( Southern Cellular Telecom v. Banks, 209 Ga. App. 401, 402 ( 433 S.E.2d 606)), the entries are hearsay "and hearsay, even when admitted into evidence without objection, lacks probative value to establish any fact. Howell Mill/Collier Assoc. v. Pennypacker's, 194 Ga. App. 169, 171 (2) ( 390 S.E.2d 257).

  4. Insurance Co. of North America v. Allgood Electric Co.

    494 S.E.2d 728 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 5 times
    In Allgood, the plaintiff presented evidence that the defendant engaged in "wanton and excessive indulgence in litigation."

    This is not to say, however, that I believe the deficiency in Allgood's proof of damages completely defeats the jury's verdict. As in Southern Co. v. Hamburg, 220 Ga. App. 834, 842 (5), ( 470 S.E.2d 467); Mitcham v. Blalock, 214 Ga. App. 29, 31 (2), supra, and Southern Cellular Telecom v. Banks, 209 Ga. App. 401, 402, ( 433 S.E.2d 606), I believe the unauthorized jury verdict in the case sub judice may be cured upon reversal in the cross-appeal (Case Number A97A1387) and remand of the case "`for [a new trial] to establish the amount of attorney fees attributable to (probative evidence offered at [trial]). See Southern Cellular Telecom v. Banks, [supra].

  5. Patterson Funeral Home v. Head

    215 Ga. App. 578 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 24 times
    Noting the "general rule that there is no justifiable reliance upon future promises which must be in writing to be enforceable"

    Consequently, the trial court erred in failing to direct the verdict as to them. 5. Lastly, defendants enumerate the denial of their motion for directed verdict as to plaintiff's claim for OCGA § 13-6-11 attorney fees, arguing that counsel "failed to apportion his time between the six counts of his Complaint," relying on Southern Cellular Telecom v. Banks, 209 Ga. App. 401 ( 433 S.E.2d 606). Plaintiff's counsel expressly excluded from the calculation of time spent on the case those "attorney's fees for the defense of [a] counterclaim [defendants had] filed."

  6. Cannon Air Transport Svcs., v. Stevens Aviation

    249 Ga. App. 514 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 23 times

    (Citation omitted.) Fiat Auto U.S. A., Inc. v. Hollums, 185 Ga. App. 113, 116 (5) ( 363 S.E.2d 312) (1987); accord Southern Cellular Telecom v. Banks, 209 Ga. App. 401, 402 ( 433 S.E.2d 606) (1993); see Redwine v. Windham, 237 Ga. App. 149, 151 ( 513 S.E.2d 13) (1999).Nichols v. Main Street Homes, Inc., 244 Ga. App. 591, 593 (1) ( 536 S.E.2d 278) (2000).

  7. Southern Co. v. Hamburg

    470 S.E.2d 467 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 23 times
    In Hamburg, billing summaries were introduced, but nothing in the opinion suggests that the records were properly introduced under OCGA § 24-3-1.

    "`"An award of attorney fees is unauthorized if [Hamburg] failed to prove the actual costs of [his attorneys] and the reasonableness of those costs. (Cit.)" Fiat Auto U.S.A. v. Hollums, 185 Ga. App. 113, 116 (5) ( 363 S.E.2d 312) (1987).' Southern Cellular Telecom v. Banks, 209 Ga. App. 401, 402 ( 433 S.E.2d 606)." Mitcham v. Blalock, 214 Ga. App. 29, 31(2) ( 447 S.E.2d 83).

  8. Merch. Ivory Prods. (Usa), Inc. v. Donaldson

    No. 4:14-CV-240 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 10, 2017)

    "[A]n award of attorney fees is to be determined upon evidence of the reasonable value of the professional services which underlie the claim for attorney fees." S. Cellular Telecom v. Banks, 433 S.E.2d 606, 608 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). The party seeking fees bears the burden of proving costs and their reasonableness.

  9. Phillips 66 Co. v. Gish Oil Co.

    Civil Action No. 7:13-CV-63 (HL) (M.D. Ga. Nov. 24, 2014)

    However, there is no information about who performed which task or how much time was expended in performing each task. "A determination of the amount of an award of attorney fees cannot be based on guesswork." S. Cellular Telecom v. Banks, 209 Ga. App. 401, 402 (1993). Phillips 66 has not provided sufficient information for the Court to determine the "reasonable value of the professional services which underlie the claim for attorney fees."

  10. Four Seasons Trucking, Inc. v. Crawford (In re Crawford)

    CASE NUMBER: 16-56156-PWB (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Jul. 10, 2018)

    .2d 272, 273 (1993) ("[T]he expenses of litigation recoverable pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 are ancillary and may only be recovered where other elements of damage are also recoverable."); Monterrey Mexican Restaurant of Wise, Inc. v. Leon, 282 Ga. App. 439, 453, 638 S.E.2d 879, 891-892 (2006), overruled on other grounds, Temple v. Hillegass, 344 Ga. App. 454, 810 S.E.2d 625 (2018) ("[T]he United requirement of apportionment does not depend on the reason for the grant of attorney fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. §13-6-11, whether bad faith, stubborn litigiousness, or unnecessary trouble and expense. . . . [W]here attorney fees are awarded under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 for bad faith, such awards must be apportioned to those attorney fees attributable to claims on which the plaintiff prevailed."); Gardner v. Kinney, 230 Ga. App. 771, 772, 498 S.E.2d 312, 313 (1998) ("Because litigation expenses (costs and attorney fees) are wholly ancillary, they are not recoverable when no damages are awarded."); Southern Cellular Telecom v. Banks, 209 Ga. App. 401, 402, 433 S.E.2d 606, 607 (1993) (attorney's fees recoverable only with regard to those in connection with prosecution of successful claim). This issue would not exist if the State Court had awarded nominal damages against Ms. Crawford on the conversion claim.