Summary
The Louisiana Second Circuit affirmed an award of $60,000 in contractual attorney fees and $896.09 in court costs to Community Bank of Louisiana in its dispute with Pamela Dunlap. The court held that the bank properly reserved its attorney-fee claim, that res judicata did not bar the claim, and that the trial court properly used a summary proceeding to determine the fees. The court declined to increase the original award but granted the bank an additional $7,500 in attorney fees and all costs for the appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Bank properly reserved its contractual claim for attorney fees and costs in its exceptions and could pursue that claim after the underlying judgment dismissed Dunlap's suit.
- Whether res judicata barred the Bank's claim for attorney fees because the earlier final judgment was silent on attorney fees.
- Whether the signed account acknowledgments and incorporated Account Agreement established Dunlap's contractual liability for the Bank's attorney fees in the dispute.
- Whether La. C.C.P. art. 2088 and summary proceedings authorized the trial court to determine the Bank's attorney fees and costs while the prior appeal was pending.
- Whether the account documents were properly admitted and whether the $60,000 attorney-fee award was excessive.
Holdings
- The Bank was entitled to recover attorney fees and costs under the account agreement because Dunlap signed acknowledgment forms confirming receipt of the agreement containing the attorney-fee provision.
- The Bank preserved its claim by expressly reserving attorney fees and expenses in its exceptions and supporting memoranda, and res judicata did not bar the claim because it had been reserved for later determination.
- The trial court retained jurisdiction to set and tax attorney fees and costs while the prior appeal was pending, and summary proceedings were an authorized procedural mechanism for determining the fee award.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the Account Agreement and related disclosures or by allowing bank employees to testify about them.
- The $60,000 award and $896.09 in costs were reasonable and were not an abuse of discretion; the Bank was not entitled to increase the original award but was entitled to $7,500 in additional attorney fees for the appeal.
Key quotations
“Attorney fees are not allowed in Louisiana unless they are authorized by statute or provided for by contract.” (at 7)
“The claims were properly reserved by the only available vehicle to do so, and then properly raised by the motion to tax costs and fix attorney fees” (at 10)
“The trial court’s ruling awarding attorney fees in the amount of $60,000 and costs in the amount of $896.00 is affirmed.” (at 14)
Factual background
Dunlap and her father visited the Bank in March 2021 concerning more than one million dollars held in a money market account and certificates of deposit, with the alleged intention of adding Dunlap as an owner or arranging a transfer upon her father's death. Dunlap later sued the Bank, alleging negligent misrepresentations and failures related to the accounts and intended estate planning. The account documents included an attorney-fee provision, and Dunlap signed acknowledgment forms stating that she received the Account Agreement. The Bank incurred more than $133,915.35 in attorney fees defending the action, while the trial court found $60,000 to be reasonable.
Procedural history
Dunlap sued the Bank over alleged failures concerning the transfer or donation of funds in her father's accounts. The trial court sustained the Bank's second exception of no cause of action and dismissed the suit with prejudice; the Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed that judgment in a prior appeal. While the prior appeal was pending, the Bank moved in the trial court to set attorney fees and tax costs based on its reservation of those claims in its exceptions. The trial court awarded $60,000 in attorney fees and $896.09 in costs, and the appellate court affirmed, denied the Bank's request to increase the original award, and awarded the Bank an additional $7,500 for the appeal.