{ "id": 4160611, "name": "MARILYN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. NEW HOPE FOUNDATION, INC., Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. New Hope Foundation, Inc.", "decision_date": "2008-09-02", "docket_number": "No. COA08-19", "first_page": "528", "last_page": "533", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "192 N.C. App. 528" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "200 S.E.2d 40", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "42" }, { "page": "42" }, { "page": "42" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560879 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "239" }, { "page": "239" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "476 S.E.2d 364", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 N.C. 626", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 867603 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/344/0626-01" ] }, { "cite": "462 S.E.2d 824", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "828" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N.C. App. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11916129 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "442" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/120/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 N.C. App. 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4160188 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/192/0129-01" ] }, { "cite": "349 S.E.2d 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4737321, 4739148, 4740524, 4738711, 4736029 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0415-05", "/nc/318/0415-01", "/nc/318/0415-04", "/nc/318/0415-03", "/nc/318/0415-02" ] }, { "cite": "345 S.E.2d 411", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "413" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 N.C. App. 662", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524992 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "663-64" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/81/0662-01" ] }, { "cite": "571 S.E.2d 220", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511539 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "266 S.E.2d 812", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "814" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561053 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "289" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0286-01" ] }, { "cite": "553 S.E.2d 431", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 7, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "443", "parenthetical": "citing Stillwell Enterprises, Inc. v. Interstate Equip. Co., 300 N.C. 286, 289, 266 S.E.2d 812, 814 (1980)" }, { "page": "444" }, { "page": "469" }, { "page": "444" }, { "page": "444" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "146 N.C. App. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11359409 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "466-67", "parenthetical": "citing Stillwell Enterprises, Inc. v. Interstate Equip. Co., 300 N.C. 286, 289, 266 S.E.2d 812, 814 (1980)" }, { "page": "469" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/146/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 S.E.2d 829", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "833", "parenthetical": "internal citation omitted" }, { "page": "833" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 770", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4755941 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "777", "parenthetical": "internal citation omitted" }, { "page": "777" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0770-01" ] }, { "cite": "299 S.E.2d 221", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562977, 8562958, 8563031, 8563002, 8562940 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0468-03", "/nc/307/0468-02", "/nc/307/0468-05", "/nc/307/0468-04", "/nc/307/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 S.E.2d 302", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "309", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 N.C. App. 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525918 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "155", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/59/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 95-25.22", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(d)" }, { "page": "(d)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 549, "char_count": 9660, "ocr_confidence": 0.731, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.148056530837267e-08, "percentile": 0.3245583043644629 }, "sha256": "08c082091e43d7c6db3cbf16f0dd795022b310eac4b96c03731a1a05c63a71d0", "simhash": "1:8fab5e2056070c64", "word_count": 1581 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:54:33.452279+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges CALABRIA and ELMORE concur." ], "parties": [ "MARILYN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. NEW HOPE FOUNDATION, INC., Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nNew Hope Foundation, Inc. (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from order entered, which awarded Marilyn Williams (\u201cplaintiff\u2019) attorney\u2019s fees and costs. We affirm.\nI. Background\nOn or about 18 June 2005, plaintiff was discharged from her employment with defendant. Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination complaint with the North Carolina Department of Labor Workplace Retaliatory Discrimination Division (\u201cDOL\u201d). On or about 16 September 2005, the DOL issued a \u201cRight to Sue\u201d letter, to enable plaintiff the right to file a lawsuit under the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (\u201cREDA\u201d).\nOn 26 November 2005, plaintiff filed a complaint, which alleged claims for relief under REDA and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (\u201cWage Act\u201d). Defendant denied all allegations. An order allowing plaintiff to file an amended complaint, to add a claim for wrongful discharge, was granted on 26 February 2007. The case was tried the week of 9 April 2007 and the jury awarded plaintiff $36.00 in unpaid wages incurred as a result of unpaid travel expenses. The trial court then awarded an additional $36.00 in liquidated damages. Defendant did not appeal the jury\u2019s verdict nor the judgment entered thereon.\nOn 22 May 2007, plaintiff moved \u201cfor an award of attorney\u2019s fees and costs[]\u201d pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 95-25.22(d). Plaintiff requested $50,100.00 in attorney\u2019s fees and $3,982.19 in costs. The trial court awarded plaintiff attorney\u2019s fees of $25,000.00 and costs of $2,534.14 on 18 June 2007. Defendant appeals.\nII.Issue\nDefendant argues the trial court erred when it granted plaintiffs motion for attorney\u2019s fees and costs.\nIII.Standard of Review\n\u201cThe case law in North Carolina is clear that to overturn the trial judge\u2019s determination [of attorney\u2019s fees and costs], the defendant must show an abuse of discretion.\u201d Hillman v. United States Liability Ins. Co., 59 N.C. App. 145, 155, 296 S.E.2d 302, 309 (1982) (citation omitted), disc. rev. denied, 307 N.C. 468, 299 S.E.2d 221 (1983). To show an abuse of discretion, the defendant must prove that the trial court\u2019s ruling was \u201cmanifestly unsupported by reason. A ruling committed to a trial court\u2019s discretion is to be accorded great deference and will be upset only upon a showing that it was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u201d White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985) (internal citation omitted).\nIV.N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 95-25.22\nDefendant argues the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded $25,000.00 in attorney\u2019s fees and $2,534.14 in costs when a judgment of only $72.00 was awarded to plaintiff and the remaining claims for violation of REDA and wrongful discharge were dismissed with prejudice. We disagree.\n\u201cThe general rule is that attorney fees may not be recovered by the successful litigant as damages or a part of the court costs, unless expressly authorized by statute or a contractual obligation.\u201d Whiteside Estates, Inc. v. Highlands Cove, L.L.C., 146 N.C. App. 449, 466-67, 553 S.E.2d 431, 443 (2001) (citing Stillwell Enterprises, Inc. v. Interstate Equip. Co., 300 N.C. 286, 289, 266 S.E.2d 812, 814 (1980)), disc. rev. denied, 356 N.C. 315, 571 S.E.2d 220 (2002).\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 95-25.22(d) (2005) states, \u201c[t]he court, in any action brought under this Article may, in addition to any judgment awarded plaintiff, order costs and fees of the action and reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees to be paid by the defendant.\u201d (Emphasis supplied). Before awarding attorney\u2019s fees, the trial court must make specific findings of fact concerning: (1) the lawyer\u2019s skill; (2) the lawyer\u2019s hourly rate; and (3) the nature and scope of the legal services rendered. In re Baby Boy Searce, 81 N.C. App. 662, 663-64, 345 S.E.2d 411, 413, disc. rev. denied, 318 N.C. 415, 349 S.E.2d 590 (1986); see also Kelly v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Env\u2019t & Natural Res., 192 N.C. App. 129, -, - S.E.2d -, - (2008) (\u201cAlthough the award of attorney\u2019s fees is within the discretion of the trial judge . . ., the trial court must make findings of fact \u2018as to the time and labor expended, the skill required, the customary fee for like work, and the experience or ability of the attorney.\u2019 \u201d (Quoting N.C. Dep\u2019t of Corr. v. Myers, 120 N.C. App. 437, 442, 462 S.E.2d 824, 828, aff'd per curiam, 344 N.C. 626, 476 S.E.2d 364 (1996))).\nIn Whiteside Estates, Inc., the defendant appealed attorney and expert witness fees awarded under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. 146. N.C. App. at 468, 553 S.E.2d at 444. The record on appeal revealed that \u201cdetailed invoices for legal fees were submitted to the trial court along with an affidavit of . . . [the] plaintiff\u2019s counsel, which set forth the hourly rates for the legal services rendered, the fact that the hourly rates charged were commensurate with the type of work involved, and [were] within the range of such fees and charges customarily charged in the community.\u201d Id. This Court affirmed the trial court\u2019s award of attorney\u2019s fees and stated, \u201c[the] [defendant . . . presented no evidence that the trial court ignored its motion, responses, or arguments. Absent such a showing by [the] defendant, we cannot find an abuse of discretion.\u201d Id. at 469, 553 S.E.2d at 444.\nHere, defendant concedes that the trial court\u2019s factual findings with regard to the skill and hourly rate of plaintiff\u2019s counsel are adequate, but disputes the trial court\u2019s findings with regard to the nature and scope of the legal services rendered:\n(6) That the hours expended by [plaintiff\u2019s counsel in order to obtain a verdict in [p]laintiff\u2019s favor were reasonable considering the issues in this case and the manner in which the case was defended.\n(7) That the Court has taken into consideration the jury\u2019s verdict on the [REDA] claim and the fact that the jury ultimately ruled in favor of [defendant on its affirmative defense. That the Court is not awarding fees for this cause of action.\n(8) That the Court has taken into account the nature of the settlement negotiations between the parties and finds that it was reasonable and necessary for [p]laintiff to seek a jury trial of her case.\n(9) That the fees being awarded by the Court were necessary to the prosecution of this case and the rendering of a final judgment in favor of [p]laintiff on her claim for unpaid wages under the Wage and Hour Act.\nDefendant has failed to show that the trial court, in making these findings: (1) did not hear all of the attorneys\u2019 arguments; (2) observe their litigation strategies; (3) watch their examination of witnesses; (4) rule on their evidentiary objections; (5) read their briefs; (6) listen to their summations of the evidence; and (7) consider their post-trial motions. \u201cAbsent such a showing by defendant, we cannot find an abuse of discretion.\u201d Id.\nAdopting the position advocated by defendant could hinder future parties from litigating claims when attorney fees and costs might outweigh the award received. In Hicks v. Albertson, our Supreme Court reviewed an award of attorney\u2019s fees in a property damage claim case. 284 N.C. 236, 200 S.E.2d 40 (1973). Our Supreme Court affirmed the trial court\u2019s award and stated:\nThe obvious purpose of th[e] statute [at issue was] to provide relief for a person who has sustained injury or property damage in an amount so small that, if he must pay his attorney out of his recovery, he may well conclude that is not economically feasible to bring suit on his claim. In such a situation the Legislature apparently concluded that the defendant, though at fault, would have an unjustly superior bargaining power in settlement negotiations.\nId. at 239, 200 S.E.2d at 42. Here, although plaintiff\u2019s claim for attorney\u2019s fees and costs stemmed from a jury\u2019s verdict awarding plaintiff unpaid wages, the same reasoning articulated by our Supreme Court in Hicks is equally applicable. 284 N.C. at 239, 200 S.E.2d at 42.\nBased upon our Supreme Court\u2019s reasoning in Hicks and this Court\u2019s reasoning in Whiteside Estates, Inc., defendant has failed to show the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded to plaintiff attorney\u2019s fees and costs pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 95-25.22. Hicks, 284 N.C. at 239, 200 S.E.2d at 42; Whiteside Estates, Inc. -, 146 N.C. App. at 469, 553 S.E.2d at 444. This assignment of error is overruled.\nV. Conclusion\nDefendant failed to show that the trial court\u2019s order \u201cwas so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u201d White, 312 N.C. at 777, 324 S.E.2d at 833. The trial court\u2019s order, which awarded attorney\u2019s fees and costs to plaintiff, is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges CALABRIA and ELMORE concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Glenn, Mills, Fisher & Mahoney, P.A., by Stewart W. Fisher, for plaintiff-appellee.", "Hairston Lane Brannon, P.A., by Anthony M. Brannon, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MARILYN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. NEW HOPE FOUNDATION, INC., Defendant\nNo. COA08-19\n(Filed 2 September 2008)\nEmployer and Employee\u2014 retaliatory discharge \u2014 ratio of damages to attorney fees \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in a retaliatory discharge action by awarding $25,000.00 in attorney fees and $2,534.14 in costs to plaintiff pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 95-25.22(d) on damages of $72.00 (for unpaid wages and liquidated damages). .The purpose of the statute is to provide relief for a person who has sustained damage so small that defendant would have an unjustly superior bargaining position in settlement negotiations.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered on or after 18 June 2007 by Judge J. Richard Parker in Hertford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 August 2008.\nGlenn, Mills, Fisher & Mahoney, P.A., by Stewart W. Fisher, for plaintiff-appellee.\nHairston Lane Brannon, P.A., by Anthony M. Brannon, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0528-01", "first_page_order": 556, "last_page_order": 561 }