Message
×
loading..

Taylor v. T&N Office Equipment ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT NASHVILLE                FILED
    July 14, 1999
    WINDON H. TAYLOR and                  )   C/A NO. 01A01-9810-CV-00563
    SARAH A. TAYLOR,                      )                Cecil Crowson, Jr.
    )               Appellate Court Clerk
    Plaintiffs-Appellees,            )
    )
    )
    v.                                    )   APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE
    )   SUMNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
    )
    )
    )
    T&N OFFICE EQUIPMENT, INC.,           )
    JERALD W. NICHOLS and GAYLE J.        )
    NICHOLS,                              )
    )   HONORABLE THOMAS GOODALL,
    Defendants-Appellants.           )   JUDGE
    For Appellant                             For Appellee
    LARRY L. CRAIN                            LOUIS W. OLIVER, III
    Brentwood, Tennessee                      Hendersonville, Tennessee
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    AFFIRMED AND REMANDED                                            Susano, J.
    1
    When this case was first before us,1 we concluded that
    the trial court had failed to conduct a proper hearing on the
    subject of the attorney’s fees to which the appellees were
    entitled under the terms of the promissory note at issue in this
    case.2      We remanded this case to the trial court to hold such a
    hearing.       The only issue now before us on this second appeal is
    whether the trial court’s subsequent award of attorney’s fees of
    $11,960.13 is reasonable, considering the criteria set forth in
    Disciplinary Rule 2-106(B) of the Code of Professional
    Responsibility (Rule 8, Rules of the Supreme Court).                Our de novo
    review of the record of the proceedings below convinces us that
    the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s
    determination of a reasonable fee in this case.               See Rule 13(d),
    T.R.A.P.
    The judgment below is affirmed, pursuant to the
    provisions of Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals.3                   The
    appellees’ request for fees and expenses in connection with this
    appeal is denied.         Costs on appeal are taxed against the
    appellants.        This case is remanded to the trial court for such
    further proceedings, if any, as may be required, consistent with
    1
    See Taylor, et ux. v. T&N Office Equipment, Inc., et al., C/A No.01A01-
    9609-CV-00411, 
    1997 WL 272444
     (Tenn.App. at Nashville, May 23, 1997).
    2
    The note provides for “reasonable attorneys’ fees and court and other
    costs” if it is “placed in the hands of an attorney for collection or for
    protection of...interest...in collateral.”
    3
    Rule 10(b), Rules of the Court of Appeals, provides as follows:
    The Court, with the concurrence of all judges
    participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or
    modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum
    opinion when a formal opinion would have no
    precedential value. When a case is decided by
    memorandum opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM
    OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be
    cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent
    unrelated case.
    2
    this opinion, and for the collection of costs assessed below, all
    pursuant to applicable law.
    __________________________
    Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
    CONCUR:
    ________________________
    Houston M. Goddard, P.J.
    ________________________
    Herschel P. Franks, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01A01-9810-CV-00563

Filed Date: 7/14/1999

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014