Austin Powder Co. v. Walter Thompson

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Austin Powder Co. v. Walter Thompson

DecidedDecember 5, 2001

Docket03A01-9607-CV-00229

StatusPublished

This text of Austin Powder Co. v. Walter Thompson (Austin Powder Co. v. Walter Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Austin Powder Co. v. Walter Thompson, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

I N T HE C OURT OF A P P E A L S OF T E NNE S S E E

E A S T E RN S E C T I ON

A US T I N P OWDE R C O. , e t a l . ) BL OUNT C OUNT Y ) 03A01- 9607- CV- 00229 Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l e e s ) ) ) v. ) HON. W. DA L E Y OUNG, ) J UDGE ) WA L T E R T HOMP S ON ) ) A F F I RME D I N P A RT ; RE V E RS E D De f e n d a n t - A p p e l l a n t ) I N P A RT a n d RE MA NDE D

HE NR Y T . OGL E OF K NOX V I L L E F OR A P P E L L A NT

E . J E ROME ME L S ON OF K NOX V I L L E F OR A P P E L L E E S

O P I N I O N

Go d d a r d , P . J .

T h e De f e n d a n t a p p e a l s a j u d g me n t e n t e r e d b y t h e Bl o u n t

C o u n t y C i r c u i t C o u r t a wa r d i n g t h e P l a i n t i f f s d i s c r e t i o n a r y c o s t s

i nc l udi ng a t t or ne y f e e s . Thi s a ppe a l a r i s e s f r om a n e a r l i e r

a c t i o n ( s e c o n d l a ws u i t ) s e e k i n g s p e c i f i c p e r f o r ma n c e o f a

s e t t l e me n t a g r e e me n t r e s o l v i n g t h e o r i g i n a l l a ws u i t f i l e d b y t h e

De f e n d a n t . T h e De f e n d a n t , Wa l t e r T h o mp s o n , s u e d t h e P l a i n t i f f s ,

A u s t i n P o wd e r C o mp a n y , Re n f r o C o n s t r u c t i o n C o mp a n y , a n d D & P

C o n s t r u c t i o n C o mp a n y , i n t h e o r i g i n a l l a ws u i t o n Ma r c h 1 , 1 9 9 0 .

I n t h a t s u i t Mr . T h o mp s o n s o u g h t t o r e c o v e r d a ma g e s s u s t a i n e d t o

h i s r e s i d e n c e wh i c h h e c o n t e n d e d wa s c a u s e d b y t h e P l a i n t i f f s '

bl a s t i ng ope r a t i ons . T h e De f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y s e t t l e d t h e c a s e

bef or e t r i a l . T h e De f e n d a n t c o n t e s t e d h i s a t t o r n e y ’ s a u t h o r i t y

t o s e t t l e a n d r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t t h e a mo u n t s p e c i f i e d i n t h e

s e t t l e me n t a g r e e me n t .

T h e P l a i n t i f f s i n i t i a t e d t h e s e c o n d l a ws u i t o n No v e mb e r

8 , 1 9 9 3 , s e e k i n g s p e c i f i c p e r f o r ma n c e o f t h e s e t t l e me n t

a g r e e me n t . On J u n e 7 , 1 9 9 4 , t h e T r i a l C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e

P l a i n t i f f s ’ mo t i o n f o r s u mma r y j u d g me n t , a n d t h e De f e n d a n t

a ppe a l e d. I n A u s t i n P o wd e r C o . v . T h o mp s o n , a n u n r e p o r t e d

dec i s i on f i l e d i n Knoxv i l l e on J a nuar y 27, 1995, t hi s Cour t

v a c a t e d t h e j u d g me n t o f t h e T r i a l C o u r t a n d r e ma n d e d t h e c a s e f o r

a t r i a l o n t h e me r i t s . On r e ma n d , t h e T r i a l C o u r t f o u n d a f t e r a

b e n c h t r i a l t h a t t h e De f e n d a n t h a d a u t h o r i z e d h i s a t t o r n e y t o

s e t t l e h i s c l a i ms a g a i n s t t h e P l a i n t i f f s a n d e n t e r e d a n o r d e r

r e q u i r i n g s p e c i f i c p e r f o r ma n c e . T h e De f e n d a n t a p p e a l e d . I n an

unr e por t e d opi ni on f i l e d i n Knoxv i l l e on Fe br uar y 20, 1996, t hi s

C o u r t a f f i r me d t h e T r i a l C o u r t , r e ma n d e d t h e c a s e f o r o t h e r

ne c e s s a r y pr oc e e di ng s , a nd a s s e s s e d t he c os t s of t he a ppe a l

a g a i n s t t h e De f e n d a n t .

2 On A p r i l 1 6 , 1 9 9 6 , t h e P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r

di s c r e t i ona r y c os t s a nd a t t or ne y f e e s . At t a c he d t o t hi s pe t i t i on

wa s a n a f f i d a v i t o f J e r o me Me l s o n , t h e P l a i n t i f f s ’ a t t o r n e y ,

out l i ni ng t he Pl a i nt i f f s ’ c os t s . The Pl a i nt i f f s r e que s t e d $993

f or depos i t i on cos t s , $414. 75 f or c our t c os t s , a nd $1808 f or

a t t or ney f e e s . The Tr i a l Cour t s c hedul e d a hea r i ng f or Apr i l 22,

1 9 9 6 , a n d i s s u e d a Me mo r a n d u m Op i n i o n o n A p r i l 2 5 , 1 9 9 6 . In its

o p i n i o n , t h e T r i a l C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g wa s

h e l d a n d , b a s e d o n t h i s h e a r i n g , a wa r d e d t h e P l a i n t i f f s $ 2 0 1 8 i n

di s c r e t i onar y c os t s . Thes e c os t s c ons i s t e d of depos i t i on cos t s

of $700, c our t c os t s of $414. 75, a nd at t or ney f e e s of $904.

Al l e g i ng t hat no ev i dent i a r y hea r i ng t ook pl a c e , t he

De f e n d a n t f i l e d a n " E X C E P T I ON" o n Ma y 2 , 1 9 9 6 , a s k i n g t h e T r i a l

C o u r t t o ma k e a n e w o p i n i o n d e l e t i n g t h e wo r d " e v i d e n t i a r y " f r o m

t he or i g i nal opi ni on. The Tr i a l Cour t e nt e r e d i t s f i nal or der on

t h e s a me d a y , i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e Me mo r a n d u m Op i n i o n o f A p r i l 2 5 ,

1 9 9 6 , f r o m wh i c h t h e De f e n d a n t a p p e a l s .

The i s s ue pr e s e nt e d t o t hi s Cour t on appe a l by bot h

p a r t i e s , wh i c h we r e s t a t e , i s wh e t h e r t h e T r i a l C o u r t a b u s e d i t s

d i s c r e t i o n i n a wa r d i n g t h e P l a i n t i f f s d e p o s i t i o n c o s t s , c o u r t

c os t s , a nd a t t or ne y f e e s . T r i a l c o u r t s a r e a l l o we d d i s c r e t i o n i n

a wa r d i n g r e a s o n a b l e a n d n e c e s s a r y c o s t s f o r p r e p a r a t i o n a n d t r i a l

of a c a s e . T h u s , a n a wa r d o f d i s c r e t i o n a r y c o s t s wi l l o n l y b e

r e v e r s e d i f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n ma k i n g s u c h

3 a n a wa r d . L o c k v . Na t i o n a l Un i o n F i r e I n s . C o . o f P i t t s b u r g h ,

P a . , 8 0 9 S . W. 2 d 4 8 3 ( T e n n . 1 9 9 1 ) .

The Tr i a l Cour t di d not a bus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n

a wa r d i n g c o u r t c o s t s o f $ 4 1 4 . 7 5 . A pr e v a i l i ng par t y i n a c i v i l

a c t i on i s e nt i t l e d t o f ul l c os t s unl e s s t he l a w or a c our t

d i r e c t s o t h e r wi s e . T. C. A. 20- 12- 101. I n t hi s c a s e , no l a w

d e n i e s t h e p r e v a i l i n g P l a i n t i f f s a n a wa r d o f c o s t s .

Re l y i n g o n Os t e r v . Y a t e s , 8 4 5 S . W. 2 d 2 1 5 ( T e n n . 1 9 9 2 ) ,

t h e De f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e T r i a l C o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n

i n a wa r d i n g d e p o s i t i o n c o s t s b e c a u s e n o e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g wa s

h e l d a n d n o wi t n e s s e s we r e p r e s e n t e d s u p p o r t i n g t h e n e c e s s i t y a n d

r e a s onabl e nes s of t hes e c os t s . T h e De f e n d a n t a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t

h e wa s d e n i e d d u e p r o c e s s b e c a u s e t h e T r i a l C o u r t d i d n o t h a v e a n

e v i de nt i a r y he a r i ng .

We f i n d t h e De f e n d a n t ’ s a r g u me n t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e a wa r d

o f d e p o s i t i o n c o s t s t o b e wi t h o u t me r i t . The Tr i a l Cour t ’ s

a u t h o r i t y t o a wa r d d i s c r e t i o n a r y c o s t s i s c o n t r o l l e d b y Ru l e

5 4 . 0 4 o f t h e T e n n e s s e e Ru l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . A l l o wa b l e

di s c r e t i ona r y c os t s i nc l ude r e a s ona bl e a nd ne c e s s a r y c our t

r e por t e r e x pens e s f or depos i t i ons . Os t e r , s u p r a . The Cour t i n

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI