Helton et al v. Vision Bank

Filing 31

Order re: that portion of Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Vision Bank's 19 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that seeks recovery of attorneys' fees and costs. It is ORDERED that Vision Bank's 30 request for attorneys' fees and costs is DISALLOWED. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 9/8/2011. copies to parties. (sdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
J. PHILIP HELTON,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

)
)
)
and
)
)
J. PHILIP HELTON REAL ESTATE AND )
DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-00563-KD-N
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
VISION BANK,
)
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on that portion of Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Vision
Bank’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 19) that seeks recovery of attorneys’ fees and
costs. On August 25, 2011, the Court issued an Amended Order granting Vision Bank’s partial
summary judgment motion as to liability. (Doc. 29). In the same Amended Order, the Court
provided Vision Bank an opportunity to file and serve “whatever materials it deems necessary and
appropriate to support its claim for costs and fees” and stated that the issue of costs and fees would
be taken under submission on September 6, 2011. (Id. at 8 n.2).
Instead of submitting to the Court any of its attorneys’ billing records, invoices, or itemized
statements, Vision Bank filed a two-paragraph affidavit of Frederick G. Helmsing, Jr., one of Vision
Bank’s attorneys of record in this case, that states only that Vision Bank has incurred costs and fees
of $10,624 and that those costs and fees are reasonable. (Doc. 30-1 at 1, ¶ 2). No detail whatsoever
is provided as to the rates charged for legal work on this case, the number of hours expended, or the
tasks performed. Vision Bank’s conclusory submission makes it impossible for the court to

1

determine whether $10,624 represents “reasonable actual attorneys’ fees and costs” as expressed
within the ambit of Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant J. Philip Helton’s promissory note. (Doc. 5-1
at 2, ¶ 6). See PNCEF, LLC v. Hendricks Bldg. Supply LLC, 740 F. Supp. 2d 1287, 1294 (S.D. Ala.
2010) (holding that district court must determine actual fee incurred by prevailing party in enforcing
its rights and ascertain whether that fee is reasonable).
In accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Vision Bank’s request for attorneys’
fees and costs is DISALLOWED. Judgment shall be entered by separate document as provided in
Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONE and ORDERED this the 8th day of September 2011.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2