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

This article talks about how the law of the case doctrine is being used in cases about attorney fees. The authors think this is a problem because it can violate people’s rights. They say that appellate courts shouldn’t decide on attorney fees without the trial court’s decision, because the trial court might need to look at facts. In conclusion, if the appellate court decides to give attorney fees, it should depend on the trial court’s decision on the case. The Law of the Case Doctrine says that once a higher court makes a decision on a legal issue, the lower courts have to follow it unless there are really good reasons not to. This applies even if the case goes back to the lower court for more proceedings. However, if things have changed or it would be really unfair to follow the higher court’s decision, the lower court can revisit it. In simple terms, once a court decides something, the other courts have to go along with it unless there’s a really good reason not to. In the Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. Elliott case, SRC tried to get money from Elliott by making a legal proposal. When Elliott didn’t challenge the proposal, the court said SRC could get the money. But later, the court changed its mind and said SRC couldn’t get the money after all. The court ruled in favor of Elliott because they didn’t challenge the proposal for settlement at the right time. The court said that once a decision is made on a legal matter, it can’t be changed later, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The court also said that if someone wins an appeal and asks for attorney fees, the trial court has to follow the appellate court’s decision on fees. The misapplication of the law of the case doctrine violates a person’s basic rights in the court process. A court decision in Florida Diversified Films, Inc. v. Simon Roofing and Sheet Metal Corp. is an example of why a court should not decide on legal fees without all the facts. In that case, Simon Roofing was ordered to pay legal fees to FDF, but a new judge later said FDF was not entitled to the fees. The appellate court refused to reconsider the decision, saying the law of the case applied and the parties were bound by the earlier ruling. Simon Roofing requested a rehearing, arguing that the initial order granting attorneys’ fees to FDF should have been conditional upon FDF winning the appeal. The court agreed, finding that the previous order should have been conditioned upon FDF ultimately prevailing in the appeal. The court also concluded that the judge did not abuse her discretion in denying FDF’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees based on its proposal for settlement. The law of the case doctrine has limited bounds, and the issue of whether a proposal for settlement is enforceable is not before the appellate court in the first appeal. This issue can be raised in the second appeal when the validity of the proposal for settlement would be fully briefed. So, the court granted the rehearing and affirmed the judge’s decision on the fee issue. In simple terms, the authors are saying that when it comes to deciding who should pay attorneys’ fees in a legal case, the trial court is in a better position to make that decision than the appellate court. They argue that the appellate court can’t decide if a party made a proposal for settlement in good faith without the trial court’s record. They also say that it’s unfair for both parties to argue about attorneys’ fees in the first appeal, when they may not know all the issues yet. And they point out that there may not be any record about attorneys’ fees at the time of the first appeal. Following strict adherence to the law of the case doctrine can deny litigants their right to a fair and meaningful appellate review. This is because the trial court has the power to reconsider its rulings, and a determination on entitlement in the first appeal may not consider the full trial court record. This can lead to a miscarriage of justice and strip litigants of their due process rights. It’s important for litigants to have a fair opportunity to challenge legal issues before the appellate court makes a decision on attorney’s fees. Appellate court orders deciding who has to pay legal fees should be based on a fair and thorough review of the case. This is important because it’s not fair to make someone pay the other side’s legal fees without a good reason. The trial court is better equipped to make this decision because they have all the facts of the case. It’s not right for the appeals court to make this decision without the trial court’s ruling. If the appeals court does decide to grant legal fees, it should be on the condition that the trial court has already decided that the fees are fair. In Florida, attorneys can be paid according to a law or a contract. To get paid, a party has to ask for it in their legal papers. There are certain rules for filing a request for payment within 30 days of a final judgment. A court decision said that previous rulings only apply to legal questions that were already decided. Another case said that a trial court can’t pay for lawyers in an appeal unless the appeals court says so. There are also rules about when attorneys can get paid if they win a case. And a court once said that parties can’t get money for their lawyers if their demand for payment is taken away.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/attorneys-fees-on-appeal-misapplication-of-the-law-of-the-case-doctrine-raises-procedural-and-substantive-due-process-concerns/