 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Milton Co. v. Council of Unit Owners of Bentley Place Condominium4/29/1998
others in his field reasonably relied upon in rendering opinions concerning the construction of residential condominiums. He also testified that he and/or other architects in his firm personally verified the surveys and found them to be accurate. Judge Mason found that "these reports are of a kind that their reliability can be determined and that they are in fact verifiable..." That finding was not clearly erroneous. The decision to admit the surveys was neither erroneous nor an unfairly prejudicial abuse of discretion.
VI.
Judge Mason awarded to appellee (1)attorneys' fees of $500,000 for both the contract and Consumer Protection Act claims, and (2)expert expenses of $228,830 for the Consumer Protection Act claim. Appellants' final argument is that these awards are not supported by the evidence.
Appellants complain that, at the hearing on appellee's Motion for an Assessment and Award of Damages for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, appellee never presented any contemporaneous time records to establish how much time its attorneys spent working on the case. Judge Mason relied instead on a compilation of those records as well as expert testimony based in part on a review of the compilation. Appellee argues that the compilation itself was admissible under Maryland Rule 5-1006, and the foundation for admission of the compilation would have been established by testimony as to its preparation. Judge Mason ruled, however, that no foundational testimony was necessary because the unrebutted testimony of appellee's expert witness provided a sufficient basis for the award of fees. We agree with Judge Mason that the original time records were not required.
" trial court enjoys a large measure of discretion in fixing the reasonable value of legal services. That amount will not be disturbed unless it is clearly an abuse of discretion." Head v. Head, 66 Md. App. 655, 669 (1986) (citations omitted). Judge Mason held a formal hearing and received substantial evidence on which to base his award of attorney fees and expert expenses.
While time is one of the applicable factors, the record need not contain evidence specifically delineating the number of hours spent by counsel. Because the record itself discloses the nature of the proceedings, it is some evidence of the extent of the attorney's efforts. Given this evidence, the chancellor may rely upon his own knowledge and experience in appraising the value of an attorney's services.
Foster v. Foster, 33 Md. App. 73, 77 (1976). Moreover, appellants could have moved to compel the production of the original records. Maryland Rule 5-1006. Appellants were entitled to "a realistic opportunity to challenge those fees and expenses... ." Maxima v. 6933 Arlington Dev. 100 Md. App 441,453 (1994). We are persuaded that they received the opportunity to which they were entitled.
Appellants also contend that the attorney's and expert fees should have been reduced according to a formula contained in the Sales Agreements. Assuming that this issue has been preserved for appeal, we hold that the contractual limitation in the Sales Agreements does not apply to fees awarded under the Consumer Protection Act. Such a limitation is inconsistent with the General Assembly's goal of protecting the public from unlawful consumer practices. See Consumer Protection Division v. Luskins, 120, Md. App. 1, 26 (1998). A party may not repeal an important provision in the Consumer Protection Act by placing into the contract a counsel fee limitation clause. Judge Mason's award of attorney's fees and expenses does not constitute an abuse of discretion.
JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED; COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANTS.
<
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|