Indus. & Mech. Contractors of Memphis, Inc. v. Tim Mote Plumbing, LLC


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-01414-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01414-COA ; 2005-CT-01414-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-23-2007
Opinion Author: BARNES, J.
Holding: AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL; REVERSED AND REMANDED ON CROSS-APPEAL

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Damages - Attorney’s fees
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): CARLTON, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-05-2005
Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court
Judge: Mitchell M. Lundy, Jr.
Disposition: JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF INDUSTRIAL AND MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS OF MEMPHIS, INC.; MOTION FOR AWARD OF CONTRACTUAL LEGAL FEES DENIED.
Case Number: 04-01-0120(ML)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: INDUSTRIAL AND MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS OF MEMPHIS, INC.




CHRISTIAN T. GOELDNER



 

Appellee: TIM MOTE PLUMBING, LLC PAUL R. SCOTT  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Contract - Damages - Attorney’s fees

Summary of the Facts: Barney Brothers of Mississippi, Inc. contracted with Industrial and Mechanical Contractors of Memphis, Inc., a general contractor, for the construction of a commercial building. Pursuant to this engagement, IMC entered into a subcontract with Tim Mote Plumbing, LLC, as plumbing subcontractor, for the installation of the plumbing system. According to the subcontract between IMC and Mote, Mote was to be paid by three separate draws. IMC paid the first two draws but refused to remit payment on the third and final draw, citing defects in the work performed by Mote. Barney Brothers, notified by Mote of IMC’s refusal to pay the final draw, filed an interpleader complaint in chancery court, naming both companies as defendants to the action. IMC filed a cross-complaint against Mote, alleging that Mote breached the contract between the parties. The chancellor awarded IMC damages in the amount of $3,816. At the conclusion of the bench trial, IMC filed a post-trial “Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees.” The chancellor denied this motion without explanation. IMC appeals the denial of attorney’s fees, and Mote cross-appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Damages The chancellor found that IMC proved that Mote breached the contract only with respect to Mote’s failure to “tie in” a water pipe underneath the parking lot. Mote argues that the chancellor erroneously based his damage computation upon evidence which included damages for failure to compact, damages which the chancellor held were not established. During trial, the owner of IMC testified as to various damage amounts that IMC incurred as a result of Mote’s breach. In conjunction with his testimony, a four-page itemized invoice from Driveways, Inc. was entered into evidence as exhibit four. The damage amounts of $2,970, and $210 which were awarded by the chancellor do not appear anywhere in the owner’s testimony nor do they appear in exhibit four. The amounts of $2,970 and $210 do, however, match exactly amounts contained in exhibit three which is a handwritten list describing four particular alleged breaches by Mote, and the monetary amounts incurred by IMC in remedying these alleged breaches. The description of these items include damages attributable to Mote’s alleged failure to compact, liability for which the chancellor specifically held was not established. Therefore, the case is reversed and remanded for further evidentiary findings as to the damage amounts attributable solely to Mote’s failure to “tie in” the water pipe. Issue 2: Attorney’s fees IMC argues that the chancellor erred by refusing to award reasonable attorney’s fees as specifically provided for in the parties’ contract. Attorney’s fees can only be awarded pursuant to a relevant contractual provision, statutory authority, or where punitive damages are also proper. Although a case may be appropriate for the award of attorney's fees, the actual award of attorney's fees is still dependent upon specific proof. The attorney’s fee clause in the contract in the instant case entitles IMC to reimbursement only for fees incurred enforcing the claim upon which it prevailed. The trial court determined that IMC did not have a right to damages or other relief with respect to any claim except the proven claim that Mote failed to “tie in” the water pipe beneath the parking lot. As IMC had rights only with respect to Mote’s failure to “tie in” the water pipe beneath the parking lot, Mote is liable for reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing those particular rights. All other fees were not necessary within the meaning of the fee clause and could not, therefore, be reasonable as required by the fee clause. In support of its motion for attorney’s fees, IMC submitted an itemized attorney bill, a summary of the proceedings, and an attorney affidavit. None of these items describe the nature of the attorney’s fees in such a way that the Court can determine which expenses relate to which claims. Therefore, the chancellor did not commit reversible error in denying the motion for attorney’s fees. IMC had its chance to produce sufficient evidence but failed to do so. It would be inappropriate to give IMC another chance to present adequate evidence.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court