Attorneys' Fees on Appeal: Misapplication of the Law of the Case Doctrine Raises Procedural and Substantive Due Process Concerns

Larry R. Fleurantin, M. L. Davidson
{"title":"Attorneys' Fees on Appeal: Misapplication of the Law of the Case Doctrine Raises Procedural and Substantive Due Process Concerns","authors":"Larry R. Fleurantin, M. L. Davidson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2742434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The authors contend that an appellate court should not grant or deny entitlement to appellate fees without the benefit of the trial court’s ruling on the validity of a proposal for settlement or contractual agreement because entitlement may depend on the trial court’s resolving factual issues. Thus, ruling on entitlement to appellate fees without the benefit of a developed trial court record raises procedural and substantive due process concerns. The authors conclude that if the appellate court decides to grant a motion for appellate fees in reviewing the final judgment, then the court should grant fees conditioned upon the trial’s court finding that the proposal for settlement or contractual agreement is valid.Appellate court orders deciding entitlement to fees without the benefit of a developed record raise substantive due process issues with profound consequences, in particular because such fee orders deprive litigants of substantive due process, as they require litigants to lose a significant property interest by paying their adversary’s attorneys’ fees for the underlying trial and subsequent appeals. The problem is that sometimes there is no underlying legal basis for attorneys’ fees when the trial court finds a proposal for settlement was not made in good faith. But a party should not be deprived of its due process right to a meaningful, full, and fair hearing before it is held liable for its opponent’s attorneys’ fees.An appellate court should not grant or deny entitlement to appellate fees without the benefit of the trial court’s ruling on the validity of a proposal for settlement or contractual agreement because it is premature for the appellate court to rule on a motion for attorneys’ fees without the benefit of a developed record. If the appellate court decides to grant a motion for appellate fees in the first appeal, then the court should grant fees conditioned upon the trial court’s finding that the proposal for settlement or contractual agreement is valid. Otherwise, appellate orders granting fees unconditionally, when the issue of entitlement has not been decided at the trial court, will infringe on litigants’ rights to procedural and substantive due process.","PeriodicalId":344388,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2742434","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The authors contend that an appellate court should not grant or deny entitlement to appellate fees without the benefit of the trial court’s ruling on the validity of a proposal for settlement or contractual agreement because entitlement may depend on the trial court’s resolving factual issues. Thus, ruling on entitlement to appellate fees without the benefit of a developed trial court record raises procedural and substantive due process concerns. The authors conclude that if the appellate court decides to grant a motion for appellate fees in reviewing the final judgment, then the court should grant fees conditioned upon the trial’s court finding that the proposal for settlement or contractual agreement is valid.Appellate court orders deciding entitlement to fees without the benefit of a developed record raise substantive due process issues with profound consequences, in particular because such fee orders deprive litigants of substantive due process, as they require litigants to lose a significant property interest by paying their adversary’s attorneys’ fees for the underlying trial and subsequent appeals. The problem is that sometimes there is no underlying legal basis for attorneys’ fees when the trial court finds a proposal for settlement was not made in good faith. But a party should not be deprived of its due process right to a meaningful, full, and fair hearing before it is held liable for its opponent’s attorneys’ fees.An appellate court should not grant or deny entitlement to appellate fees without the benefit of the trial court’s ruling on the validity of a proposal for settlement or contractual agreement because it is premature for the appellate court to rule on a motion for attorneys’ fees without the benefit of a developed record. If the appellate court decides to grant a motion for appellate fees in the first appeal, then the court should grant fees conditioned upon the trial court’s finding that the proposal for settlement or contractual agreement is valid. Otherwise, appellate orders granting fees unconditionally, when the issue of entitlement has not been decided at the trial court, will infringe on litigants’ rights to procedural and substantive due process.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
上诉律师费:案例法原则的错误应用引发了程序和实体正当程序问题
提交人认为,在初审法院对和解建议或合同协议的有效性作出裁决之前,上诉法院不应准予或拒绝上诉费的权利,因为权利可能取决于初审法院对事实问题的解决。因此,在没有完善的审判法庭记录的情况下就有权获得上诉费用作出裁决,引起了程序性和实质性正当程序问题。作者的结论是,如果上诉法院决定在审查最终判决时批准上诉费用动议,那么法院应根据审判法院认定和解建议或合同协议有效而批准费用。上诉法院在没有成熟记录的情况下决定是否有权收取费用的命令引发了具有深远影响的实质性正当程序问题,特别是因为此类费用命令剥夺了诉讼当事人的实质性正当程序,因为它们要求诉讼当事人为基础审判和随后的上诉支付对方的律师费,从而失去重要的财产权益。问题是,有时当初审法院发现和解建议并非出于善意时,律师费并没有根本的法律依据。但一方当事人在承担对方律师费之前,不应被剥夺进行有意义、充分和公平听证的正当程序权利。在初审法院对和解建议或合同协议的有效性作出裁决之前,上诉法院不应批准或拒绝获得上诉费用的权利,因为在没有成熟记录的情况下,上诉法院对要求律师费的动议作出裁决是不成熟的。如果上诉法院决定在第一次上诉中批准上诉费用的动议,那么法院应根据初审法院认定和解建议或合同协议有效的情况,批准费用。否则,在权利问题尚未在初审法院作出决定的情况下,无条件给予费用的上诉命令将侵犯诉讼当事人享有程序和实质正当程序的权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Observing Online Courts: Lessons from the Pandemic Discovery as Regulation Section 89 of the CPC: ADR and Business Disputes. Brief for Samuel L. Bray as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Merck & Co. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. Adversarial Persuasion with Cross-Examination
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1