SHAWN F TOWNSEND V KEITH'S AUTO SALES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
SHAWN F. TOWNSEND,
UNPUBLISHED
June 28, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V
KEITH’S AUTO SALES, EARL GUTSHALL,
and DOUGLAS HAMILTON,
No. 229776
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 99-090334-CH
Defendants-Appellees,
and
KEITH HAMILTON and ERIC HAMILTON,
Defendants.
Before: Hood, P.J., and Saad and E. M. Thomas,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the judgment for costs and attorney fees. We affirm. This
appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff brought this action under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, asserting that
defendants engaged in unlawful practices in financing a car she purchased. Defendants admitted
liability in their answer, and a trial was held as to damages, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff of
$1,815.88. The court awarded attorney fees of $2,000.00.
MCL 445.911(2) authorizes a plaintiff who suffers a loss as a result of a violation of the
Consumer Protection Act to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees. Smolen v Dahlmann
Apartments, Ltd, 186 Mich App 292, 295; 463 NW2d 261 (1990). This Court will review a trial
court’s decision regarding a reasonable attorney fee for abuse of discretion. Head v Phillips
Camper Sales & Rental, Inc, 234 Mich App 94, 113; 593 NW2d 595 (1999). In determining a
reasonable fee, the court must consider the special circumstances presented by a consumer
protection act case. Id. The court must also consider the factors set forth in Crawley v Shick, 48
Mich App 728, 737; 211 NW2d 217 (1973):
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
(1) the professional standing and experience of the attorney; (2) the skill,
time and labor involved; (3) the amount in question and the results achieved; (4)
the difficulty of the case; (5) the expense incurred; and (6) the nature and length
of the professional relationship with the client.
The court is not limited to considering the Crawley factors and may adjust the attorney fee in
light of the results of the proceeding. Head, supra, 114.
The trial court applied the Crawley factors. There was no evidence regarding the
professional standing and experience of counsel. The case was not complicated and defendant
admitted liability. The amount in question was not great, and the relationship between counsel
and client was poor. The court also observed that plaintiff was substantially responsible for her
loss and her settlement demands were unreasonable. The trial court then awarded fees in excess
of the recovery received by plaintiff, supporting the purposes of the consumer protection act.
Plaintiff has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion.
Affirmed.
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Edward M. Thomas
-2-
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.
