Timothy J. Pagliara v. Marlene Moses

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2020-00990-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; September 14, 2022; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves an appeal concerning the award of attorney fees under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-12-119(c), relevant to parties who prevail on a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Timothy J. Pagliara, the plaintiff, filed a complaint against defendants Marlene Moses and MTR Family Law, PLLC, related to a divorce proceeding. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the complaint on December 3, 2018, without initially requesting attorney fees. Pagliara appealed the dismissal, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on February 20, 2020, and the Tennessee Supreme Court later denied further review.

After the dismissal appeal, the defendants filed a motion for attorney fees in the trial court on June 16, 2020, requesting the statutory maximum of $10,000. The trial court granted this motion and awarded the fees. However, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's award of attorney fees and costs, remanding the case for further proceedings. The opinion was delivered by Judge John W. McClarty, with Judges D. Michael Swiney and Thomas R. Frierson, II, concurring.

On June 19, 2020, the Court issued a Mandate regarding the case of Timothy J. Pagliara v. Marlene Moses et al., which was filed in the trial court on June 22, 2020. The Mandate ordered the Davidson County Circuit Court to execute the judgment from the Court of Appeals and proceed with further proceedings to fulfill the order's objectives. On June 29, 2020, the Plaintiff opposed the Defendants’ motion for attorney fees, asserting it was barred by the final judgment affirmed on appeal and was untimely, as the Defendants did not request fees in their October 3, 2018 motion to dismiss or before the final judgment on December 3, 2018. The Plaintiff argued that the appellate judgment, which mentioned costs, did not allow for reopening the case to consider attorney fees under section 20-12-119(c) and also claimed the Defendants' fee requests were inaccurate.

After a hearing on July 7, 2020, the trial court granted the Defendants’ motion, awarding them $10,000 in attorney fees and costs, with credit for previously paid taxable costs. The Defendants initially claimed $64,995.30 in attorney fees and $2,044.03 in costs, later amending the total request to $13,220. Under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-12-119(c)(4), a party cannot be required to pay costs exceeding a total of $10,000 in a single lawsuit. The Plaintiff paid court costs on June 25, 2020.

The Plaintiff raised one appeal issue: whether a request for attorney fees under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-12-119(c) can be made for the first time after an appeal from the underlying judgment. The standard of review for interpreting this statutory provision is de novo, with no presumption of correctness. Courts are to interpret statutes according to the General Assembly's intent, using the plain and ordinary meaning of the words within the context, and avoid exceeding the scope intended by the legislature while facilitating harmonious legal operation.

When a trial court awards costs, including attorney fees, under Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-12-119(c), appellate courts evaluate the trial court's determination of reasonableness for such costs using an abuse of discretion standard. However, the legal standard for awarding these costs is governed by the statute's mandatory language. The statute mandates that in civil cases where a motion to dismiss is granted for failure to state a claim, the court must award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the opposing party. These costs encompass various expenses incurred due to the dismissed claims, including court costs and attorney fees. Importantly, any award of costs is contingent upon final, unappealable decisions following the exhaustion of appeals related to the motion to dismiss. The statute sets a cap of $10,000 on recoverable costs in a single lawsuit and does not preclude other legal provisions for cost awards. Additionally, the court must stay the award of costs until a final judgment is reached. There is no specified timeline for when a party must request these costs; however, the award cannot be made until the trial court has made a final determination, which resolves all claims and leaves nothing further for the court to adjudicate. An order granting a motion to dismiss is generally considered an adjudication on the merits unless specified otherwise.

The trial court's December 3, 2018, order is recognized by both parties as a final judgment. The Plaintiff argues that upon entering a final judgment and subsequent appeal, any unasserted claims are forfeited, regardless of their potential merit. Conversely, the Defendants assert that to ensure finality and judicial efficiency, motions for attorney fees under T.C.A. 20-12-119 should be reserved until after the finalization of the underlying judgment and appeals. They reference cases such as Donovan and Irvin, though these cases differ factually from the current situation, as they involved requests for fees made at the time of filing motions to dismiss, unlike the Defendants who waited until after the appeal. The court highlights that a party may waive claims for attorney fees by not pursuing them properly, citing Seaton v. Wise Properties-TN, LLC as a relevant example, where the buyer failed to address attorney fees in a motion for summary judgment and did not take further action post-judgment. Consequently, the court concludes that the issues of waiver and the limitations on the trial court upon remand from the Plaintiff's first appeal are central to the matter at hand.

Following the affirmation of the trial court's summary judgment by the appellate court, sellers sought permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which was denied. The case was remanded to the trial court to collect costs. The buyer did not raise the issue of attorney fees during the initial appeal or the application for permission to appeal. Post-remand, the buyer filed for attorney fees based on a default provision in their agreement, which the trial court granted after a hearing. However, the appellate court determined that the buyer had effectively abandoned their counterclaim for attorney fees by not questioning the summary judgment's finality or raising the issue in their prior appeal. 

The appellate court ruled that the remand for "any further proceedings" did not allow the trial court to reopen a previously abandoned claim and that the trial court exceeded its authority in considering the buyer's motion for attorney fees. Consequently, the award of attorney fees was vacated. The same reasoning applied to the defendants in this case, who did not request attorney fees before the dismissal judgment and failed to raise the issue on appeal. The trial court erred in hearing their motion for costs and fees, which was introduced for the first time after the appeal. Therefore, the appellate court vacated the trial court's judgment awarding costs and attorney fees to the defendants and remanded the case for consistent judgment. The costs of the appeal were assigned to the appellees, and it was noted that attorney fees incurred on appeal are not recoverable under Tennessee law unless explicitly provided.