Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell v. Tommie Mack Granger

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

06-859

GOLD, WEEMS, BRUSER, SUES & RUNDELL

VERSUS

TOMMIE MACK GRANGER

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 205,470
HONORABLE HARRY FRED RANDOW, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX
CHIEF JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, J. David Painter, and
James T. Genovese, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Henry B. Bruser, III
Michael John O’Shee
Edward E. Rundell
Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell
P. O. Box 6118
Alexandria, LA 71307-6118
Telephone: (318) 445-6471
COUNSEL FOR:
Plaintiff/Appellee - Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell

David Cleveland Hesser
2820 Jackson Street
Alexandria, LA 71301
Telephone: (318) 542-4102
COUNSEL FOR:
Plaintiff/Appellee - Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell

Staci Knox Villemarette
Cloud, Wimberly & Villemarette, L.L.C.
P. O. Box 53951
Lafayette, LA 70505-3951
Telephone: (337) 289-6906
COUNSEL FOR:
Defendant/Appellant - Tommie Mack Granger

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.

Defendant, Dr. Tommy Mack Granger (Dr. Granger), is a former client

of attorney J. Ogden Middleton, II (Middleton), who was a partner in the Plaintiff’s

law firm of Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell (Gold). Dr. Granger appeals the

trial court judgment awarding Gold $49,999.00 in past due attorney fees, plus twelve

percent interest based on the engagement agreement signed by both parties, court

costs, and additional attorney fees incurred in the collection of the bill. Dr. Granger

alleges that the trial court committed twenty-six errors of law and fact, requiring this

court to reverse the judgment. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court

judgment.

I.

ISSUES

While Dr. Granger argues that the trial court committed twenty-six

errors, each of which would require this Court to reverse the judgment of the trial

court that Dr. Granger owes Gold $49,999.00 in past due attorney fees plus interest

and court costs, we find that those errors are encompassed within five issues:

(1) whether the fee charged by Gold was reasonable;

(2) whether the trial court abused its vast discretion in
considering the admissibility of evidence;

(3) whether the trial court committed legal error by
assessing interest against sums owed at the agreed
upon contractual rate of twelve percent, and not
using the legal interest rate;

(4) whether the trial court committed manifest error by
denying Dr. Granger’s motion for an involuntary
dismissal at the close of Gold’s case in chief; and,

(5) whether the trial court erred in denying Dr.
Granger’s motion for a new trial.

II.

FACTS

Dr. Granger’s marriage to his wife Stephanie ended in divorce. They had

one child together during their marriage. During the course of the divorce

proceedings, the matter of which of the parents would be named domiciliary parent

by the court became a hotly contested issue. While he had a team of lawyers working

on his behalf on other matters related to his divorce, in December of 1999 Dr.

Granger sought the assistance of Gold, specifically Middleton, to help him in his

quest to be named domiciliary parent.

Dr. Granger and Gold created and signed an Engagement Agreement to

memorialize their understanding of what Dr. Granger would be billed for and what

work Gold would perform on his behalf. Paragraph six of the Engagement

Agreement gave Dr. Granger the right to terminate the employment of Gold at any

time and have no further obligation to Gold “other than to pay for fees and expenses

incurred up to the time of notification of Gold by Client of the termination of

employment.” The next paragraph enumerated Gold’s right to collect any unpaid

bills. “In the event that collection efforts and/or litigation are necessary to obtain

payment of monies due under this agreement, Client shall be liable for all costs and

expenses thereof (including attorney’s fees, calculated at the rates set forth above if

Gold elects to handle the matter itself).”

The custody issue was litigated intensely by both parents. For more than

one year, many hours of work were performed, generating thousands of dollars in

legal fees up through and including the trial on the custody matter. The trial court

judgment named Dr. Granger’s ex-wife as the domiciliary parent. Dr. Granger had

been receiving monthly, itemized bills from Gold for the time, resources, and

2

expenses that were being expended on behalf of his case. Upon learning the trial

court judgment against him, Dr. Granger began expressing his dissatisfaction with the

work done by Gold. He hired a new attorney to pursue an appeal of the trial court

judgment and refused to pay Gold any of the outstanding balance on his bill.

Gold filed a breach of contract suit to collect the fees it claimed were

owed based on the monthly bills generated and sent to Dr. Granger and the

Engagement Agreement signed by both parties. While Gold originally claimed Dr.

Granger owed approximately $80,000.00, that claim was modified and reduced to

$49,999.00 plus interest, court costs, and attorney fees incurred in the collection of

the debt in order to avoid a jury trial. The trial court determined that Gold proved the

amount was in fact owed to it by Dr. Granger, and that Dr. Granger did not bear his

burden of proving that those fees were clearly excessive. Therefore, judgment was

rendered against Dr. Granger for $49,999.00 plus interest, court costs, and attorney

fees. Dr. Granger then timely filed this appeal.

III.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

Courts are vested with the responsibility of both monitoring and

analyzing the attorney/client relationship, even when it is based on a written contract

between the parties.

[A]lthough the basic relationship between client and
lawyer may be contractual, that association is nonetheless
subject to the inherent authority of this Court to positively
affect that fiduciary relationship through its power to
regulate the practice of law. See O’Rourke v. Cairns,
95-3054 (La. 11/25/96), 683 So.2d 697; [LSBA v.] Edwins,
540 So.2d [294 (La.1989)] at 299.

3

Chittenden v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 00-414, pp. 9-10 (La. 5/15/01), 788

So.2d 1140, 1147-48 (footnote omitted).

When there is a dispute concerning fees charged by the attorney to the

client pursuant to the contract between the parties, courts resolve the disagreement

using the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) as guidance. “Therefore,

any dispute relative to an attorney-client relationship is subject to the close scrutiny

of this Court and is resolved under the codal provisions as illuminated by the RPC.

See Leenerts Farms v. Rogers, 421 So.2d 216 (La.1982); see also Watson v. Cook,

427 So.2d 1312, 1316 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1983).” Chittenden v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

Ins. Co., 788 So.2d at 1148.

The RPC which governs the determination of whether the fees set and

charged by an attorney are reasonable reads in pertinent part as follows:

Rule 1.5 Fees

(a) A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or
collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for
expenses. The factors to be considered in determining the
reasonableness of a fee include the following:

(1) the time and labor required, the novelty
and difficulty of the questions involved, and
the skill requisite to perform the legal service
properly;

(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client,
that the acceptance of the particular
employment will preclude other employment
by the lawyer;

(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality
for similar legal services;

(4) the amount involved and the result
obtained;

(5) the time limitations imposed by the client
or by the circumstances;

4

(6) the nature and length of the professional
relationship with the client;

(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of
the lawyer or lawyers performing the services;
and

(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

(b) The scope of the representation and the basis or rate of
the fee and expenses for which the client will be
responsible shall be communicated to the client, preferably
in writing, before or within a reasonable time after
commencing the representation, except when the lawyer
will charge a regularly represented client on the same basis
or rate. Any changes in the basis or rate of the fee or
expenses shall also be communicated to the client.

Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5.

Fees charged for legal services are open accounts. Louisiana Revised

Statutes 9:2781 provides in pertinent part:

§ 2781. Open accounts; attorney fees; professional fees;
open account owed to the state

A. When any person fails to pay an open account
within thirty days after the claimant sends written demand
therefor correctly setting forth the amount owed, that
person shall be liable to the claimant for reasonable
attorney fees for the prosecution and collection of such
claim when judgment on the claim is rendered in favor of
the claimant. Citation and service of a petition shall be
deemed written demand for the purpose of this Section. If
the claimant and his attorney have expressly agreed that the
debtor shall be liable for the claimant’s attorney fees in a
fixed or determinable amount, the claimant is entitled to
that amount when judgment on the claim is rendered in
favor of the claimant. Receipt of written demand by the
person is not required.

....

D. For the purposes of this Section and Code of
Civil Procedure Articles 1702 and 4916, “open account”
includes any account for which a part or all of the balance
is past due, whether or not the account reflects one or more
transactions and whether or not at the time of contracting
the parties expected future transactions. “Open account”

5

shall include debts incurred for professional services,
including but not limited to legal and medical services. For
the purposes of this Section only, attorney fees shall be
paid on open accounts owed to the state.

La.R.S. 9:2781 A & D.

While courts are vested with the responsibility of policing attorney

conduct, that responsibility must be tempered with restraint, especially when the

parties have signed a contract which memorializes the terms of their agreed-upon

relationship.

Review of allegedly excessive attorney’s fees is tempered
with judicial restraint. Drury v. Fawer, 590 So.2d 808, 810
(La.App. 4th Cir. 1991), writ denied, 592 So.2d 1304
(La.1992). Courts are not in the business of setting fees.
Id. However, if the court factually determines that fees
billed were never earned, a reduction in the fees is proper.
Id. at 811. Otherwise, absent a showing that the fee
charged was clearly excessive, a contractual relationship
between an attorney and client should not be altered. Id. at
811. “A fee is ‘clearly excessive,’ if it is ‘so grossly out of
proportion with the fees charged for similar services by
other attorneys in the locale as to constitute an
unquestionable abuse of the attorney’s professional
responsibility to the public.’” Teche Bank and Trust Co. v.
Willis, supra [93-732, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/94), 631
So.2d 644] at 646-47 (quoting Desselle v. Moreauville
State Bank, 553 So.2d 1067, 1069 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1989),
writ denied, 558 So.2d 584 (La.1990)). The trial court’s
determination of whether a fee is clearly excessive is a
factual question which will not be disturbed absent
manifest error. Id. at 647.

Salsbury v. Salsbury, 27,062, p. 6 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/21/95), 658 So.2d 734, 738-39.

An appellate court cannot overturn or reverse a trial court’s setting of

attorney fees unless the appellate court finds that the trial court abused the discretion

afforded by the RPC, the Louisiana Constitution, and Louisiana jurisprudence. See

RPC 1.5; Leenerts Farms, Inc., 421 So.2d 216, and Chittenden, 788 So.2d 1140.

“The amount of reasonable attorney fees to be allowed is at the discretion of the trial

court. Teche Bank and Trust Co. v. Willis, 93-732 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/94); 631 So.2d

6

644.” Albert K. Newlin, Inc. v. Morris, 00-1564, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/28/01),

782 So.2d 1116, 1120, writ denied, 01-875 (La. 5/25/01), 793 So.2d 164.

However, appellate courts must examine the reasonableness of the fee,

even if based on a contractual agreement.

The Louisiana Supreme Court and this court, in holding
that to enforce Article 2000 in some instances, may violate
the Rules of Professional Conduct’s ban against an
attorney accepting a clearly excessive fee, have placed an
obligation on courts to inquire into the reasonableness of
attorney fees stipulated in contractual agreements.
Desselle, 553 So.2d 1067 at 1069.

Teche Bank and Trust Co. v. Willis, 93-732, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/94), 631 So.2d

644, 646.

[H]owever, quantum meruit does not serve to permit a
client who has agreed to pay an hourly fee, and on whose
behalf services have been performed pursuant to that
agreement, to ignore statements for those services,
discharge the attorney, and avoid contractual fee
obligations theretofore incurred. As to services rendered
in accordance with the parties’ agreement, the contractual
provision is enforceable unless the fee is “excessive,
unearned, or incommensurate.” Lester v. Lester, 516 So.2d
219 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1987).

Salley & Salley v. Stoll, 03-807, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/9/03), 864 So.2d 698, 703.

Reasonableness of the Fees Charged

The one who asserts a fact bears the burden of proving that fact;

therefore, the burden of proving the reasonableness of the fees charged is on the

attorney claiming fees are owed. Succession of Herrle, 517 So.2d 386 (La.App. 5 Cir.

1987), writ denied, 519 So.2d 129 (La.1988). Once an attorney proves to the trial

court’s satisfaction that the amount claimed due is actually owed, the burden of proof

shifts to the client to prove that the fees are clearly excessive. Teche Bank and Trust

Co., 631 So.2d 644.

7

Of course, just because particular evidence is admissible
does not mean that it will be persuasive to the finder of fact
or that it is sufficient to support some particular factual
finding. But, in the present case it is obvious that the trial
court did find the billing statements persuasive. The issues
of the work done and the amounts owed are ones of fact
and we may not set aside the trial court’s factual
determinations unless they are “clearly wrong” or
“manifestly erroneous.”

Fawer, Brian, Hardy & Zatzkis v. Howes, 93-2076, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/15/94), 639

So.2d 329, 332, writ denied, 94-1893 (La. 10/28/94), 644 So.2d 653.

Gold submitted copies of the monthly billing statements sent to and

received by Dr. Granger, the Engagement Agreement which served as the contract for

agreed-upon services and terms between the parties, itemized bills for work and time

spent on Dr. Granger’s case, the entire Gold file for work performed on Dr. Granger’s

case, and the testimony of Middleton to support the claim that the fees claimed were

actually owed. The trial court ruled that those various forms of evidence satisfied

Gold’s burden of proving that the fees were actually owed. The burden then shifted

to Dr. Granger to prove that the fees owed were clearly excessive.

Dr. Granger does not dispute the hourly rate charged by Gold. He is not

arguing that the fees charged were clearly excessive. Instead, he argues that Gold

charged for work that was either unnecessary or not actually performed. Dr. Granger

received bills each and every month from Gold. The bills he received provided

details of the reasons for each of the new monthly charges, including providing Dr.

Granger with a running total on the balance of what was owed by him to Gold. Gold

argues that Dr. Granger made payments on those bills and never complained about

the amount or size of the charges until he learned that he lost his battle to become

domiciliary parent. In fact, Gold argues that Dr. Granger was always asking

Middleton to put in more and more time on Dr. Granger’s case to ensure that Dr.

8

Granger was awarded domiciliary custody of his young daughter. Based on the terms

of their contractual engagement agreement, Dr. Granger could have fired Gold at any

time. He did not have to allow the bills to accumulate unquestioned for so long.

Dr. Granger disputes 141 of the 1131 specific billing entries in the Gold

bill that Gold alleges are still unpaid. Most of the disputed entries consist of phone

calls, meetings, and conferences with other attorneys that Dr. Granger asserts do not

match the time sheets of those other attorneys. Gold argues that even if these specific

billing entries were dropped from the balance owed by Dr. Granger, it would only

represent 4.8% of the entries, or 8% of the total bill. After reviewing the record in its

entirety, we find that it was not unreasonable nor an abuse of discretion for the trial

court to determine that in fact the fees charged were based on work actually

performed and, therefore, owed by Dr. Granger to Gold. We agree with the trial court

that Dr. Granger did not prove that the fees charged were for work that was clearly

excessive and unnecessary. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s judgment that the

fees charged to Dr. Granger were reasonable.

Admissibility of Evidence

Almost half of the errors that Dr. Granger alleges were committed by the

trial court involve issues surrounding the admissibility of evidence. A trial court is

given vast discretion in its ruling on the admissibility of evidence, including whether

or not witness testimony is relevant and admissible.

The district court is given vast discretion in its decisions on
evidentiary rulings and its decision to admit or exclude
evidence will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly
shown that it has abused that discretion. Foster v. Rabalais
Masonry, Inc., 01-1394 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/02), 811 So.2d
1160, writ denied, 02-1164 (La. 6/14/02), 818 So.2d 784.

9

Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. City of Lafayette, 05-1478, p. 23 (La.App. 3

Cir. 1/5/06), 919 So.2d 844, 860.

We cannot overturn a trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of

evidence unless those rulings were clearly wrong or we find that the trial court abused

the vast discretion it is accorded. Dr. Granger attempted to admit the testimony and

deposition testimony of many various witnesses that the trial court found were

irrelevant to the basic question presented to it, namely, whether the fees charged by

Gold were reasonable and not clearly excessive.

The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on
pre-trial discovery, and an appellate court should not upset
such a ruling absent an abuse of that discretion. King v.
Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., 01-1735 (La.App. 4th Cir. 4/2/03),
844 So.2d 1012. This broad discretion includes the right
to refuse or limit discovery of matters that are not relevant
to the issues. Id.

Walker, Toole & Lyons, L.L.P. v. Sapp, 37,996, p. 8 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/10/03), 862

So.2d 414, 419, writ not considered, 04-88 (La. 3/19/04), 869 So.2d 836.

We have carefully reviewed the entire record of this case and find that

the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings on the admissibility of the

various forms of evidence submitted by Dr. Granger. Therefore, we affirm all of the

trial court’s evidentiary rulings.

Contractual Versus Legal Rate of Interest

As mentioned above, a contract existed which memorialized the terms

of representation agreed to by both Dr. Granger and Gold. That contract specified

that if any sum of money owed by Dr. Granger went unpaid for thirty days or more,

an interest rate of twelve percent would attach to the outstanding balance. It is

allowable under Louisiana law for an attorney to charge a client interest on sums

overdue as long as that interest rate is spelled out in a contractual agreement.

10

With respect to the practice of attorneys charging
their clients interest, it is permitted provided the client
agrees in writing to such a charge, and the interest rate is
lawful and reasonable. Chittenden, supra. Interest is a
charge, or fee, commonly expressed as an annual
percentage rate, paid by a person for the use he makes of,
or a detention he exerts on, monies belonging to another,
for a specified period of time. Id.

Walker, Toole, & Lyons, L.L.P. v. Sapp, 862 So.2d at 418.

Both the Louisiana Civil Code and the Louisiana Revised Statutes have

codified how interest should be calculated on sums of money owed both under a

contractual agreement and if based on the judicial rate of interest. The following are

the applicable sections of Louisiana law regarding interest rates:

La.Civ.Code art. 2000. Damages for delay measured by
interest; no need of proof; attorney fees

When the object of the performance is a sum of
money, damages for delay in performance are measured by
the interest on that sum from the time it is due, at the rate
agreed by the parties or, in the absence of agreement, at the
rate of legal interest as fixed by R.S. 9:3500. The obligee
may recover these damages without having to prove any
loss, and whatever loss he may have suffered he can
recover no more. If the parties, by written contract, have
expressly agreed that the obligor shall also be liable for the
obligee’s attorney fees in a fixed or determinable amount,
the obligee is entitled to that amount as well.

La.R.S. 9:3500. Rates of legal and conventional interest;
usury

A. Interest is either legal or conventional.

....

C. (1) The amount of the conventional interest cannot
exceed twelve percent per annum. The same must be fixed
in writing; testimonial proof of it is not admitted in any
case.

Dr. Granger was ordered by the trial court to pay the interest rate on

sums owed and overdue that he agreed to per the contractual agreement he signed

11

with Gold, which was twelve percent. Since this is the maximum amount allowed by

law, and Dr. Granger agreed to that rate of interest in writing, the trial court

committed no error in assessing the conventional, contractual interest rate of twelve

percent against the fee awarded to Gold.

Denial of Dr. Granger’s Motion for an Involuntary Dismissal

At the close of Gold’s case-in-chief, Dr. Granger asked the court to grant

him an involuntary dismissal. He argued that Gold had not submitted evidence into

the record to prove that the fees requested were actually owed.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1672(B) guides us in

determining the appropriate standard for either granting or denying a motion for

involuntary dismissal:

B. In an action tried by the court without a jury,
after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his
evidence, any party, without waiving his right to offer
evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move
for a dismissal of the action as to him on the ground that
upon the facts and law, the plaintiff has shown no right to
relief. The court may then determine the facts and render
judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the moving
party or may decline to render any judgment until the close
of all the evidence.

An appellate court reviews a trial court’s judgment on a motion for

involuntary dismissal under a manifest error standard of review. Kite v. Carter, 03-

378 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/1/03), 856 So.2d 1271. A trial court is accorded great

discretion in acting upon a motion for involuntary dismissal. Smith v. Knight, 39,781

(La.App. 2 Cir. 6/29/05), 907 So.2d 831. Our review of the record convinces us that

the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Gold presented more than sufficient

evidence to establish its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

12

Gold offered its entire file regarding its representation of Dr. Granger,

including all of the statements for outstanding bills, during the course of the trial

before closing its case-in-chief. The trial court took this offer of evidence under

advisement, and then later officially admitted the entire file into the official record of

the case.

Since Gold offered this substantial body of evidence for admission into

the record before closing its case-in-chief, the trial court did not err in denying Dr.

Granger’s motion for an involuntary dismissal. Gold did indeed offer more than a

sufficient amount of evidence to prove that the fees it claimed were owed were in fact

due. There was sufficient evidence in the record at the time Dr. Granger offered his

motion for involuntary dismissal to support a denial of that motion.

Motion for a New Trial

Dr. Granger focuses his motion for a new trial on the principal

contention that the trial court erred in awarding interest pursuant to the contract

between the parties. That assertion has been previously addressed in this opinion.

Further, it is well-settled that a trial court is granted much discretion in granting or

denying a motion for a new trial under La.Code Civ.P. art. 1972. Boudreaux v.

Wimberly, 02-1064 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/2/03), 843 So.2d 519, writ denied, 03-1251 (La.

9/5/03), 852 So.2d 1037; McGhee v. Drennan, Inc., 04-950 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/20/05),

904 So.2d 3.

Attorney Fees for Defending the Appeal

Additionally, Gold has formally requested additional attorney fees for

defending this appeal. Louisiana law and jurisprudence allow a party to be

compensated for defending a case on appeal under certain circumstances.

13

Art. 2164. Scope of appeal and action to be taken; costs

The appellate court shall render any judgment which
is just, legal, and proper upon the record on appeal. The
court may award damages for frivolous appeal; and may
tax the costs of the lower or appellate court, or any part
thereof, against any party to the suit, as in its judgment may
be considered equitable.

La.Code Civ.P. art. 2164.

[A]dditional attorney fees are usually awarded on appeal to
an appellee when the appellant obtains no relief, and the
appeal has necessitated additional work on the opposing
party’s counsel, provided that the opposing party
appropriately requests an increase. Guidry v. Millers
Casualty Insurance Company, 01-0001, p. 11 (La.App. 1st
Cir. 6/21/02), 822 So.2d 675, 684.

Sund v. St. Helena Parish Sch. Bd., 05-2473, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/5/06), 935 So.2d

219, 223, writ denied, 06-1392 (La. 9/22/06), 937 So.2d 392.

Based on the record before us, and using the factors listed in RPC 1.5 as

our guide, because of the work performed in responding to the voluminous appellate

brief and record submitted by Dr. Granger, we award Gold an additional $4,000.00

in attorney fees for defending this appeal.

IV.

CONCLUSION

While a contract between two or more parties is regarded as the law

governing that contractual relationship, when the contract concerns the fees charged

by attorneys to clients, Louisiana law directs the court to monitor that relationship.

If a client does not pay his or her attorney fees, an attorney may seek redress with the

court for payment under a suit for breach of contract. The attorney must first prove

that the fee charged was reasonable. Upon successfully proving the fee was

reasonable, the burden of proof then shifts to the client to prove that the fee charged

14

was clearly excessive. Gold successfully proved that the fee charged was reasonable.

Dr. Granger could not meet his burden of proving that the fees charged to him by

Gold were clearly excessive. Therefore, the trial court’s award of attorney fees in the

amount of $49,999.00 plus court costs and interest is affirmed.

A trial court is afforded vast discretion regarding determinations of the

admissibility of evidence. Unless a trial court abuses that vast discretion, its

evidentiary rulings will not be disturbed on appeal. In this case, we find that the trial

court did not abuse its vast discretion, and we affirm the evidentiary rulings made by

that court.

When parties to a contract stipulate to a rate of interest for overdue sums

owed, as long as that rate of interest is within the legal limit, a court will enforce the

contractual interest rate. Because Dr. Granger agreed to pay interest at the rate of

twelve percent on any sums owed that were overdue by thirty days or more via the

signed engagement agreement, the trial court is affirmed in awarding interest on the

attorney fee award at that contractual rate.

An appellate court reviews a motion for involuntary dismissal de novo.

Upon reviewing the entire record, we find that there was sufficient evidence offered

by Gold to prove that the fees it claimed were owed were in fact earned and

reasonable. Therefore, Gold proved that it had a right to relief, and the motion for

involuntary dismissal was properly denied by the trial court.

Gold is awarded an additional $4,000.00 for work required in defending

this appeal.

All costs of this appeal are assessed to Defendant/Appellant, Tommie

Mack Granger.

AFFIRMED.

15