Tew v. West

16 Citing cases

  1. Olson v. McMillian

    144 N.C. App. 615 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that the absence of a finding concerning "superior bargaining power" does not require reversal where the trial court makes adequate findings on the whole record to support its award of attorney's fees

    While the trial court must make adequate findings of fact based on the whole record to support an award of attorney's fees, "detailed findings are not required for each factor." See Tew v. West, 143 N.C.App. 534, ----, 546 S.E.2d 183, 185 (2001). Additionally, a trial court's ruling on a motion for attorney's fees under section 6-21.1 "will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion."

  2. Robinson v. Shue

    145 N.C. App. 60 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 17 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion in trial court's award of attorney's fees where parties conceded there had been no unjust exercise of superior bargaining power

    In the present case, reasonable attorney fees qualify as part of the costs. See Tew v. West, 143 N.C. App. 534, 546 S.E.2d 183 (2001); and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 6-21 (1999). Before plaintiffs filed suit, defendant offered to settle the case for $1,650.00, and later made an offer of judgment in the amount of $1,718.00.

  3. Barry v. Carpenter

    153 N.C. App. 200 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002)

    Detailed findings as to each factor are not necessary. See Tew v. West, 143 N.C. App. 534, 537, 546 S.E.2d 183, 185 (2001). A trial court's findings of fact are binding on appeal if supported by competent evidence.

  4. Highsmith v. Clark

    738 S.E.2d 830 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013)

    However, the trial court need not make detailed findings as to each Washington factor. Tew v. West, 143 N.C.App. 534, 536–37, 546 S.E.2d 183, 185 (2001). To support the contention that the trial court did not consider the whole record, Defendant asserts that the trial court did not consider Plaintiff's refusal of three reasonable pretrial offers, and the large award of “$39,000 to $55,000” Plaintiff requested before trial.

  5. Wright v. Murray

    651 S.E.2d 913 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    However, the trial court is not required to make detailed findings of fact as to each factor. Tew v. West, 143 N.C.App. 534, 537, 546 S.E.2d 183, 185 (2001) . Instead, the trial court is required only to make the additional findings necessary to preserve its ruling on appeal. Thorpe, 144 N.C.App. at 573, 551 S.E.2d at 857 .

  6. Wright v. Murray

    187 N.C. App. 155 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007)

    However, the trial court is not required to make detailed findings of fact as to each factor. Tew v. West, 143 N.C. App. 534, 537, 546 S.E.2d 183, 185 (2001). Instead, the trial court is required only to make the additional findings necessary to preserve its ruling on appeal. Thorpe, 144 N.C. App. at 573, 551 S.E.2d at 857.

  7. McDaniel v. McBrayer

    595 S.E.2d 784 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 8 times

    The trial court's failure to make a finding as to Defendant's exercise of unfair bargaining power is not grounds for reversal. See Tew v. West, 143 N.C. App. 534, 537, 546 S.E.2d 183, 185 (2001) (upholding fee award where the court's findings omitted whether the defendant exercised superior bargaining power). Further, it is well established that where an insurance company is not a named defendant, there is no requirement that the trial court make an "unwarranted refusal" finding in order to award attorneys' fees. Furmick, 154 N.C. App. at 464, 573 S.E.2d at 175; Washington, 132 N.C. App. at 350, 513 S.E.2d at 334.

  8. House v. Stone

    594 S.E.2d 130 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 5 times

    However, the trial court is not required to make detailed findings of fact as to each factor. Tew v. West, 143 N.C. App. 534, 537, 546 S.E.2d 183, 185 (2001). Instead, the trial court is required only to make the additional findings necessary to preserve its ruling on appeal. Thorpe, 144 N.C. App. at 573, 551 S.E.2d at 857.

  9. Overton v. Purvis

    162 N.C. App. 241 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that “G.S. § 6–20 allows the trial court to assess ‘costs' in its discretion,” and that “ ‘[w]hile the decision to tax costs is not reviewable absent an abuse of discretion, the discretion to award costs is strictly limited by our statutes' ”

    While a "[m]ere recitation by the trial court that it has considered all [the] Washington factors" without making additional findings of fact is inadequate, id. at 572, 551 S.E.2d at 857, "the trial court is not required to make detailed findings for each factor." Id. (citing Tew v. West, 143 N.C. App. 534, 546 S.E.2d 183 (2001)). The trial court must only make findings with respect to "those facts matching th[e] Washington factors apposite to the instant case."

  10. Gurganus v. Cartwright

    573 S.E.2d 773 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002)

    Although the trial court's findings, supported by competent evidence, must be sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review, detailed findings as to each factor are not necessary. See Tew v. West, 143 N.C. App. 534, 537, 546 S.E.2d 183, 185 (2001); Fortune Ins. Co. v. Owens, 351 N.C. 424, 428, 526 S.E.2d 463, 466 (2000). I Settlement Offers Prior to Lawsuit