William R. Rice III and Laura Rebecca Rice v. Grove Hill Homeowners' Association, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/14/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110884 W i l l i a m R. Rice I I I and Laura Rebecca R i c e v. Grove H i l l Homeowners' A s s o c i a t i o n , Inc. Appeal from Lee C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-900178) MOORE, J u d g e . W i l l i a m R. R i c e I I I a n d L a u r a R e b e c c a R i c e a p p e a l judgment o f t h e Lee C i r c u i t C o u r t attorney fees and c o s t s from a ("the t r i a l c o u r t " ) a w a r d i n g i n t h e amount o f $18, 284.96 t o t h e 2110884 G r o v e H i l l Homeowners' A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . ("the A s s o c i a t i o n " ) . We affirm. The p a r t i e s have p r e v i o u s l y b e e n b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t , i n G r o v e H i l l Homeowners' A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . v . R i c e , 609 ( A l a . C i v . App. court reversed trial court 2010) a judgment o f t h e t r i a l had concluded complied property with covenants. finding ("Grove H i l l This that that a their first 43 So. 3d I " ) , i n which court, driveway this i n which the on the subdivision's Rices' restrictive court h e l d t h a t the t r i a l court had e r r e d i n the Rices' driveway d i d not violate the subdivision's r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s , a n d we remanded t h e c a s e for court the t r i a l to consider c a r r i e d i t s burden of p r o v i n g to obtain 3d at whether the A s s o c i a t i o n the remaining elements necessary t h e permanent i n j u n c t i o n i t had r e q u e s t e d . 615. Upon remand, had the t r i a l court entered 43 So. a new judgment, a g a i n d e n y i n g t h e A s s o c i a t i o n t h e i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f i t had r e q u e s t e d . Hill (Ala. The A s s o c i a t i o n Homeowners' A s s o c i a t i o n , C i v . App. 2011) again appealed. I n c . v. R i c e , ("Grove H i l l II"). See G r o v e 90 So. 3d 731 I n Grove H i l l I I , t h i s c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t , because t h e R i c e s had had n o t i c e o f the restrictive covenant t h a t they breached, the A s s o c i a t i o n 2 2110884 was entitled that the t o enforcement of t h a t r e s t r i c t i v e trial court had erred in covenant declining to and grant the p e r m a n e n t i n j u n c t i o n r e q u e s t e d by t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ; we reversed the for trial trial court's court opinion. On for judgment to enter 90 So. and remanded the cause a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h 3d a t this the court's 740-41. remand f r o m t h i s c o u r t , t h e A s s o c i a t i o n f i l e d a m o t i o n the entry maintaining of a judgment a d r i v e w a y on their enjoining property the Rices t h a t d i d not from comply w i t h t h e s u b d i v i s i o n ' s r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s and r e q u e s t i n g an a w a r d o f $22,567.57 i n c o s t s to that motion attorney. was On an and itemized March 15, attorney bill 2012, the fees. from the trial Attached Association's court entered judgment i n f a v o r of the A s s o c i a t i o n , e n j o i n i n g the R i c e s "installing, property using, or maintaining any driveway" on t h a t d i d not comply w i t h the r e s t r i c t i v e covenants of Rices are g r a n t e d leave show c a u s e why and Also t o , on o r b e f o r e the A s s o c i a t i o n ' s March 15, 2012, the Association 3 April 15, request for attorney's c o s t s i n t h e amount o f $22,567.57 s h o u l d on from their the s u b d i v i s i o n ; the judgment a l s o s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t "The a n o t be filed part: 2012, fees granted." an amended 2110884 m o t i o n t o t a x c o s t s on a p p e a l , a t t a c h i n g t h e r e t o an and On verified filed bill of costs. a response to the order the award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s . to t h a t r e s p o n s e on A p r i l finding May 17, that 2012, the Association['s] The 19, the Rices 2012, the an Rices objection Association f i l e d a reply 2012. trial court entered obligated "are reasonable 16, t o show c a u s e and to On April itemized to attorney's fees a pay and judgment the costs" ... and a w a r d i n g t h e A s s o c i a t i o n c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount of $18,284.96. The R i c e s f i l e d t h e i r n o t i c e o f a p p e a l c o u r t on J u n e 15, The its discretion attorney and Rices 2012. a r g u e on by appeal ordering fees because, they no e v i d e n c e was to t h i s t h a t the them say, submitted to trial pay court the t h e amount was exceeded Association's unreasonable to s u b s t a n t i a t e the amount. " [ W ] h i l e we have r e c o g n i z e d t h a t 'the reasonableness of an award of attorney fees i s within the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t , s u b j e c t t o c o r r e c t i o n o n l y f o r an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n , ' we have n o t e d t h a t when an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t r e v i e w s t h e a w a r d o f an a t t o r n e y f e e 'we must be a b l e t o d i s c e r n f r o m t h e r e c o r d what f a c t o r s t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount o f a t t o r n e y f e e s . ' L a n i e r v. M o o r e - H a n d l e y , I n c . , 575 So. 2d 83, 85 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) , ley, c i t i n g Van S c h a a c k v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., [530 So. 4 2110884 "'We now turn to the question regarding t h e amount o f a t t o r n e y fees a w a r d e d . "The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r an attorney fee i s reasonable i s w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l a b s e n t an abuse of that discretion." Ex parte E d w a r d s , 601 So. 2d 82, 85 ( A l a . 1992) . Our deference to the trial court in attorney-fee cases i s based upon o u r r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t , which has p r e s i d e d over t h e e n t i r e l i t i g a t i o n , has a superior understanding of the f a c t u a l questions t h a t must be r e s o l v e d i n f e e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . See H e n s l e y v. E c k e r h a r t , 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S . C t . 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r r e g a r d i n g an a t t o r n e y f e e must allow f o r meaningful review by articulating the decisions made, t h e reasons s u p p o r t i n g those d e c i s i o n s , and t h e performance of the attorney-fee c a l c u l a t i o n . American C i v i l L i b e r t i e s Union o f Ga. v. B a r n e s , 168 F.3d 423, 427 ( 1 1 t h C iirr.. 1 9 9 9 ) ; s e e a l s o H e n s l e y , 461 U.S. a t 437, 103 S . C t . 1933.' " C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v. H o r n , 810 So. 2d 667, 681-82 (Ala. 2001) . See a l s o L o l l e y v . C i t i z e n s Bank, 494 So. 2d 19 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ; H u n t l e y v. R e g i o n s Bank, 807 So. 2d 512 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; Ex p a r t e E d w a r d s , 591 So. 2d 491, 493 ( A l a . 1990) ('The t r i a l c o u r t r e d u c e d t h e r e q u e s t e d f e e o f $75,301.56 t o $9,000.00. I n d o i n g s o , t h e t r i a l c o u r t made no f i n d i n g s o f r e c o r d as t o why s u c h a r e d u c t i o n was made. We a r e n o t i n a p o s i t i o n t o determine i f i n f a c t the t r i a l court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding a l e s s e r f e e than was requested without f i r s t knowing t h e c o u r t ' s reason f o r doing s o . ' ) . " B e a l Bank, SSB v. S c h i l l e c i , 896 So. 2d 395, 404 ( A l a . 2004) . 5 2110884 We court note first j u d g e was that, upon assigned costs and a t t o r n e y fees a different circuit- t o the case than had p r e s i d e d t h e t r i a l and h a d e n t e r e d appealed i n t h i s case. remand, the previous over judgments t h a t had been The j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g t h e A s s o c i a t i o n states, i n pertinent part: "Upon r e v i e w o f t h e m a t e r i a l s s u b m i t t e d by t h e Homeowners' A s s o c i a t i o n and a n a l y z i n g t h e f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h i n [ P e e b l e s ] v. M i l e y , 4 3 [ 9 ] So. 2d 137 (Ala. 1 9 8 3 ) , t h e C o u r t awards c o s t s and a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s t o t a l l i n g E i g h t e e n T h o u s a n d Two H u n d r e d E i g h t y F o u r and 96/100 D o l l a r s ( $ 1 8 , 2 8 4 . 9 6 ) . " The (Ala. factors s e t f o r t h i n Peebles 1 9 8 3 ) , and r e f e r e n c e d v. M i l e y , i n the t r i a l court's r e s t a t e d i n Van S c h a a c k v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., (Ala. 439 So. 2d judgment a r e 530 So. 2d 740 1988), and i n c l u d e : "(1) t h e n a t u r e and v a l u e o f t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e employment; (2) t h e l e a r n i n g , s k i l l , and l a b o r r e q u i s i t e to i t s proper discharge; (3) t h e t i m e consumed; (4) t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l experience and reputation of the attorney; (5) t h e w e i g h t o f h i s responsibilities; (6) t h e measure of success achieved; (7) t h e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d ; (8) w h e t h e r a f e e i s f i x e d o r c o n t i n g e n t ; (9) t h e n a t u r e and l e n g t h o f a p r o f e s s i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p ; (10) t h e fee c u s t o m a r i l y charged i n the l o c a l i t y f o r s i m i l a r legal services; (11) the likelihood that a p a r t i c u l a r employment may p r e c l u d e o t h e r employment; and (12) t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s i m p o s e d by t h e c l i e n t or by t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . " 530 So. 2d a t 749. 6 137 2110884 The R i c e s attorney exhibit for reference to the Rices' attorney, to the Rices' attorney fees an e - m a i l s e n t by t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ' s which was attached r e s p o n s e and o b j e c t i o n as an to the request and which s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t part: "It seems c l e a r t h a t y o u r c l i e n t s d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d t h e c o n c e p t o f covenants t h a t run w i t h the land. However, i f they continue t h e i r p r e s e n t c o u r s e , I c a n g u a r a n t e e you t h e y w i l l g e t a f u l l and e x p e n s i v e e d u c a t i o n that statement intentionally on t h a t t o p i c . " evidences inflated argue t h a t the t r i a l that the the attorney The R i c e s a s s e r t Association's fees. attorney Rices also c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o e x p l a i n how i t d e t e r m i n e d t h e award o f a t t o r n e y fees. The A s s o c i a t i o n r e q u e s t e d a t t o r n e y $22,567.57. The that Attached to itemized that bill fees request, the Association submitted an $10,531.22 f o r t h e p e r i o d September 8, 2010, t h r o u g h F e b r u a r y 24, 2012. The A s s o c i a t i o n l a t e r s u b m i t t e d an amended m o t i o n to tax costs, $1,026.41. to an i t e m i z e d In the A s s o c i a t i o n ' s the t r i a l asserted attaching from i n t h e amount o f court's order i t s attorney of costs totaling r e p l y to the Rices' response t o show bill totaling cause, the Association t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e amounts, t h e A s s o c i a t i o n 7 2110884 had submitted previous documents indicating that the A s s o c i a t i o n h a d i n c u r r e d c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount o f $12,036.35. II and This court reviewed l o c a t e d documents evidencing t o t a l amount o f $12,036.35 through April The fees and costs f o r the p e r i o d February Hill i n the 25, 2009, 28, 2010. trial experience t h e r e c o r d i n Grove court may i n determining rely on i t s own the value of the knowledge legal and services p e r f o r m e d and i n s e t t i n g t h e f e e w i t h o u t e n t e r t a i n i n g e v i d e n c e of the reasonableness o f t h e f e e . S p a f f o r d v. C r e s c e n t C r e d i t C o r p . , 497 So. 2d 160, 162 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1986) . We t h a t , b a s e d on t h e documents the present before s u b m i t t e d by t h e A s s o c i a t i o n i n case and i n G r o v e H i l l i t sufficient evidence reasonableness conclude from of the fees requested. I I , the t r i a l which court had t o determine the A d d i t i o n a l l y , the t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i t had c o n s i d e r e d the f a c t o r s i n Peebles i n calculating court's thus, i t i s clear c o n s i d e r a t i o n of those discrepancy awarded. i t s award; between the A c c o r d i n g l y , we factors amount conclude that i s what requested and that the t r i a l the trial l e d to the amount court d i d n o t e r r i n i t s award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e A s s o c i a t i o n . 8 any 2110884 The Rices also assert that "the trial court held no h e a r i n g to a l l o w the R i c e s to cross-examine the reasonableness of note the fee, as r e q u i r e d by Alabama law." We that the R i c e s f a i l e d to request a h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g the A s s o c i a t i o n ' s request for attorney fees. Moreover, the R i c e s f a i l to any a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e i r a s s e r t i o n t h a t a h e a r i n g was in c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. decline So. to consider 3d 264, The 266 trial t h a t argument. ( A l a . C i v . App. See C i v . P.; cite required, thus, we C r o u c h v. A l l e n , 76 2011). c o u r t ' s judgment i s a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. Pittman and Thomas, J J . , concur. Thompson, P . J . , and B r y a n , J., dissent, without 9 writings.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.