TCF Natl. Bank v. Watson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as TCF Natl. Bank v. Watson, 2010-Ohio-1307.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TCF NATIONAL BANK FBO AEON FINANCIAL, LLC. Plaintiff-Appellant -vs- : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Julie A. Edwards, J. Case No. 2009 CA 00163 OPINION ANTONIO WATSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from Stark County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2008 CV 04852 JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 22, 2010 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendants-Appellees MARK A. SCHWARTZ DAVID T. BRADY KIRK W. LIEDERBACH 27 N. Wacker Drive, Ste. #503 Chicago, IL 60606 ANTONIO WATSON 1320 Elmside Alliance, Ohio 44601 UNKNOWN SPOUSE, IF ANY, OF ANTONIO WATSON 1320 Elmside Alliance, Ohio 44601 UNKNOWN TENANT, IF ANY, OF 766 Seneca Ave., South Alliance, Ohio 44601 For Defendents-Appellees EQUICREDIT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, MORTGAGEE 10401 Deerwood Park Blvd. Jacksonville, FL 32256 GARY D. ZEIGLER, TREASURER Of STARK COUNTY C/o John F. Anthony, II Assistant Prosecutor, Civil Division 110 Central Plaza, South, Ste. #510 Canton, Ohio 44702 ALLIANCE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, JUDGMENT HOLDER, #2003JG05284 C/o David J. Lundgren 526 East Main Street Alliance, Ohio 44601 [Cite as TCF Natl. Bank v. Watson, 2010-Ohio-1307.] Edwards, J. {¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant, TCF National Bank FBO Aeon Financial, LLC, appeals the May 22, 2009, Judgment Entry entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, awarding it attorney fees in an amount less than sought. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {¶2} Appellant purchased a tax lien certificate from the Stark County Treasurer on a property located in Stark County, Ohio. Subsequently, Appellant filed a Complaint for Foreclosure, pursuant to R.C. 5721.30 to 5721.46. Appellant s counsel filed a motion for private attorney s fees with a supporting Affidavit attached. The motion for fees requested $2,500.00 in attorney s fees, to be taxed as a cost of the private foreclosure action, and requested a hearing. {¶3} The motion for attorney s fees was unopposed. Thereafter, the trial court issued an Order and Decree of Foreclosure awarding attorney s fees and listed the statutory factors it considered. However, the Order stated the amount of fees would be determined later. Subsequently, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry awarding attorney s fees in an amount less than Appellant requested. The trial court did not recite its reason(s) or offer its analysis to explain its award in the entry. {¶4} It is from this Judgment Entry Appellant appeals, raising as its sole assignment of error: {¶5} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ARBITRARILY AWARDED APPELLANT $1,000 IN ATTORNEY FEES BY A JUDGMENT ENTERED WITHOUT SPECIFIC ANALYTICAL FINDINGS, WHEN THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE IN APPELLANT S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR Stark County App. Case No. 2009 CA 00163 3 ATTORNEY FEES CLEARLY SHOWED ITS COUNSEL HAD EARNED, AND BEEN PAID, $2,500.00. {¶6} Generally, the starting point in determining the amount of attorney s fees to award is the computation of the lodestar figure. Blum v. Stenson (1984), 465 U.S. 886, 888,104 S.Ct. 1541, 1543-1544, 79 L.Ed.2d 891, 895-896; Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983), 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40. The lodestar is the number of hours expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. City of Burlington v. Dague (1992), 505 U.S. 557, 559-561, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 2640, 120 L.Ed.2d 449, 454-456; Blum, 465 U.S. at 888; Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. If the court deviates from the lodestar, it must provide a clear explanation. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. {¶7} Once the trial court calculates the lodestar figure, the court may modify that calculation by application of the factors listed in DR 2-106(B), now, Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5. Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc. (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 143, 145-146, 569 N.E.2d 464. These factors are: the time and labor involved in maintaining the litigation; the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; the professional skill required to perform the necessary legal services; the attorney's inability to accept other cases; the fee customarily charged; the amount involved and the results obtained; any necessary time limitations; the nature and length of the attorney/client relationship; the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; and whether the fee is fixed or contingent. All factors may not be applicable in all cases and the trial court has the discretion to determine which factors to apply, and in what manner that application will affect the initial calculation. Id. Stark County App. Case No. 2009 CA 00163 {¶8} 4 Moreover, a determination of the amount of such fees lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Unless the amount of fees determined is so high or so low as to shock the conscience, an appellate court shall not interfere. Bittner, supra at 146. (Citation omitted). Nonetheless, when making a fee award, the trial court must state the basis for the fee determination; absent such a statement, it is not possible for an appellate court to conduct a meaningful review. Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc. supra, at 146. {¶9} We are unable to determine from the Judgment Entry how the trial court arrived at the dollar amount awarded. The trial court failed to state the basis for its fee determination. The lodestar amount is not set forth. Absent such a statement, it is not possible for this Court to conduct a meaningful review and to determine what factors the court considered or the weight, if any, it placed on those factors. [T]he trial court must state the basis for the fee determination." Bittner, supra, at 146. {¶10} Accordingly, we reverse the attorney s fee award and remand the matter to the trial court for redetermination consistent with the Supreme Court's instructions in Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc., supra. Stark County App. Case No. 2009 CA 00163 5 {¶11} Appellant s sole assignment of error is sustained. By: Edwards, J. Gwin, P.J. and Farmer, J. concur s/Julie A. Edwards________________ s/W. Scott Gwin__________________ s/Sheila G. Farmer________________ JUDGES JAE/d0223 [Cite as TCF Natl. Bank v. Watson, 2010-Ohio-1307.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TCF NATIONAL BANK FBO AEON FINANCIAL, LLC. Plaintiff-Appellant -vsANTONIO WATSON, et al., Defendants-Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY CASE NO. 2009 CA 00163 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings in accordance with our Opinion and the law. Costs waived. s/Julie A. Edwards__________________ s/W. Scott Gwin____________________ s/Sheila G. Farmer__________________ JUDGES

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.