Electronics Capital Corporation v. William Donald Sheperd

Fifth Circuit

Electronics Capital Corporation v. William Donald Sheperd

439 F.2d 692, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11562

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 1971

Docket29763

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 439 F.2d 692 (Electronics Capital Corporation v. William Donald Sheperd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Electronics Capital Corporation v. William Donald Sheperd, 439 F.2d 692, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11562 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal relates solely to the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees awarded in connection with a judgment in favor of appellees, Electronics Capital Corporation, in the amount of $207,219.13. The judgment was rendered against appellant William Donald Sheperd as guarantor of a note made by General Electrodynamics Corporation and payable to appellees.

After granting summary judgment for appellant on the merits, the district court conducted a hearing in order to fix attorney’s fees. In the document upon which suit was brought, the appellant promised to pay reasonable attorney’s fees in case suit was brought to enforce collection of the debt. On this issue, testimony was taken from counsel for both parties as well as from six respected local attorneys. The attorney for ap-pellee testified that he spent approximately 30 hours preparing motions, pleadings, affidavits, negotiating with appellees, and participating in hearings. Testimony from the six local attorneys resulted in estimates of reasonable fees ranging from approximately $3,000 to approximately $25,000; appellees asked for $20,000 and appellant suggested $2,500. Based on this evidence, the district court fixed the fee at $10,000.

Determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee is a matter which is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Hoffman v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 411 F.2d 594, 595 (5th Cir. 1969); Connecticut Importing Co. v. Frankfort Distilleries, 101 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1939). See B-M-G Investment Co. v. Continental-Moss-Gordin, Inc., 437 F.2d 892 (5th Cir. 1971); Campbell v. Green, 112 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1940). Actual time spent in obtaining the judgment is not the only factor to be considered in fixing attorneys’ fees in cases of this nature. The amount involved, the difficulty of collection, the value of the services rendered to the client and other elements may be considered. Our examination of the record reveals no abuse of this discretion. The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This appeal relates solely to the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees awarded in connection with a judgment in favor of appellees, Electronics Capital Corporation, in the amount of $207,219.13. The judgment was rendered against appellant William Donald Sheperd as guarantor of a note made by General Electrodynamics Corporation and payable to appellees.

After granting summary judgment for appellant on the merits, the district court conducted a hearing in order to fix attorney’s fees. In the document upon which suit was brought, the appellant promised to pay reasonable attorney’s fees in case suit was brought to enforce collection of the debt. On this issue, testimony was taken from counsel for both parties as well as from six respected local attorneys. The attorney for ap-pellee testified that he spent approximately 30 hours preparing motions, pleadings, affidavits, negotiating with appellees, and participating in hearings. Testimony from the six local attorneys resulted in estimates of reasonable fees ranging from approximately $3,000 to approximately $25,000; appellees asked for $20,000 and appellant suggested $2,500. Based on this evidence, the district court fixed the fee at $10,000.

Determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee is a matter which is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Hoffman v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 411 F.2d 594, 595 (5th Cir. 1969); Connecticut Importing Co. v. Frankfort Distilleries, 101 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1939). See B-M-G Investment Co. v. Continental-Moss-Gordin, Inc., 437 F.2d 892 (5th Cir. 1971); Campbell v. Green, 112 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1940). Actual time spent in obtaining the judgment is not the only factor to be considered in fixing attorneys’ fees in cases of this nature. The amount involved, the difficulty of collection, the value of the services rendered to the client and other elements may be considered. Our examination of the record reveals no abuse of this discretion. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 F.2d 692, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/electronics-capital-corporation-v-william-donald-sheperd-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack