Civil Practice – Attorneys’ Fees – Jurisdiction to Consider Award Fees and Costs

Listen to this article

The attorneys’ fees award was inappropriate because Respondent did not plead a claim for fees in its answer.

We reversed the attorneys’ fees award in its entirety.

This appeal addressed whether Respondent has a viable claim for attorneys’ fees. The case began when Appellant sued Respondent, claiming Respondent was liable to contribute to a settlement from a different lawsuit against Appellant. Respondent had been a party to a property management agreement that was relevant to the other suit. Appellant argued Respondent’s actions led to Appellant being sued. Respondent won summary judgment. Appellant appealed. Years later, and long after the summary judgment was upheld by both appellate courts, Respondent sought attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing party, citing the property management agreement. The circuit court granted the request. We agreed with Appellant that the attorneys’ fees award was inappropriate because Respondent did not plead a claim for fees in its answer. Although the answer did include a brief request for costs, we found Respondent’s motion for this relief was untimely.

There is no common law right to attorneys’ fees in South Carolina; therefore, a party must plead either a contract or a statute to receive attorneys’ fees. But whether the claim is stated in general terms or with specificity, the point remains that before a party can pursue a claim for fees, the request must first be pleaded. There was no mention of attorneys’ fees in Respondent’s responsive pleadings or anywhere else during the case’s pre-summary judgment life at the circuit court. Because Respondent did not plead a claim for fees, we reversed the award. Respondent’s answer included a request for costs. However, a passing request for costs does not satisfy the requirement that a party must plead a claim for attorneys’ fees to seek those fees.

Appellant argued the circuit court lost jurisdiction to consider and award fees and costs after the 10-day posttrial motions deadline expired immediately after the circuit court entered summary judgment. The circuit court’s grant of summary judgment resolved all claims in the case and, for that reason, was plainly a final judgment. We accept Respondent’s argument that attorneys’ fees and costs are related to the merits of a principal claim but are also distinct from the merits, and that because of this, a Rule 59(e) motion, which asks the court to reconsider issues that have already been decided, would be inapplicable if fees and costs were not previously requested. Still, accepting that proposition does not lead to the conclusion that there is an open-ended deadline after a final judgment has been entered for filing a postjudgment request for this relief. Rule 54(d), SCRCP, sets a 10-day deadline on motions for costs. The motion here was filed five years after the case was decided, eleven months after the case was remitted, and was plainly untimely. Accordingly, we reversed the award of fees and costs in its entirety.

Reversed.

Century Capital Group LLC v. Midtown Development Group LLC (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 012-070-25, 5 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Richland County Circuit Court (Alison Renee Lee, J.) Donald Ryan McCabe, Jr., of McCabe, Trotter & Beverly, P.C., of Columbia, for Appellant. John Gwilym Tamasitis, of Williams Mullen, of Columbia, for Respondent. South Carolina Court of Appeals Unpublished