Date: 03-30-2012

Case Style: Carl Fleig v. Landmark Construction Group, Inc.

Case Number: CS-2011-11206

Judge: Robert Trent Pipes

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: E.W. Keller

Defendant's Attorney: Philip A. Schovanec

Description: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma civil litigation lawyers represented the Plaintiff and Defendants in a contract dispute.


¶2 In July of 2010, homeowners contracted with the appellee, Landmark Construction Group, Inc., (Landmark) to replace a hail-damaged roof on their home in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The homeowners were also in negotiations to sell the house to the appellant, Carl Fleig (Fleig). Fleig's mortgage company required a new roof in order for him to purchase the home. Landmark replaced the roof in August of 2010 for a total cost of $23,125.00.

¶3 By July of 2011, the new roof had leaked and caused damage to both the inside and outside of the home. Outside repairs cost $2,535.00, and inside repairs cost $1,387.51, for a total sum of $3,922.51. Landmark refused to address the leaks on the ground that any warranty given to the prior homeowners did not transfer to Fleig. Fleig paid a contractor to repair the roof and sought $1,400.00 from Landmark to repair the interior damage.

¶4 On December 19, 2011, Fleig sued Landmark claiming that the roof certification it completed for the sale of the house either acted as a warranty or an assurance on which Fleig relied in purchasing the home. Fleig later asserted theories of implied warranty, contractual warranty, and fraud. The matter went to a bench trial on November 2, 2012.

¶5 At the close of Fleig's presentation of evidence, Landmark moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court granted. On November 30, 2012, Landmark filed a motion for attorney fees. An order filed April 15, 2013, reflects that the trial court held a hearing on attorney fees on December 20, 2012, and signed an order awarding Landmark $5,000.00 in attorney fees.

¶6 On April 15, 2013, Fleig appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court. On June 8, 2015, we vacated the Court of Civil Appeals opinion and adopted the dissenting opinion. We remanded the matter to the trial court because Fleig had established a prima facie case for several possible theories of recovery. A different trial judge held a second bench trial on January 12, 2017, giving Landmark the opportunity to contest the facts which were previously presented by Fleig.

¶7 On March 30, 2017, the trial court filed a judgment, and it entered an award against Landmark for $2,725.00. On April 13, 2017, Fleig appealed. While the appeal was pending, Fleig filed a motion for attorney fees in the trial court, requesting $29,995.00. On December 20, 2019, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the cause. The Court of Civil Appeals opinion provided in pertinent part:

. . . Based on the evidence produced during the second trial, and considering the evidence from the first trial, it is clear that Landmark did not contract to do the work on Fleig's roof that the district court found to be the proximate cause of Fleig's damages. Likewise, a 'Roofing Certification' provided by Landmark at the time Fleig purchased the house was not shown to be misleading or the cause of any damage suffered by Fleig. Fleig did not appeal the judgment in favor of Landmark that excluded the damage to the interior of his house or certain work outside the scope of the Landmark contract. That part of the judgment is affirmed. The remaining portion of the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Landmark. . . .

¶8 Fleig petitioned this Court for certiorari, and on January 9, 2020, we denied his request. On June 15, 2020, we granted Landmark's Motion for Appeal-Related Costs and taxed $388.50 in appeal-related costs against Fleig. After mandate issued on July 16, 2020, Landmark filed motions for attorney fees and costs in the trial court. It sought $1,621.85 in costs, and $65,666.50 in attorney fees for both trial court and appellate court work. The spreadsheet used to supplement the attorney fee motion begins in February of 2014, and ends on July 29, 2020.

¶9 Fleig objected to Landmark's costs, but agreed that $925.14 was proper. Fleig also disputed the attorney fees as excessive. Even though he previously sought nearly $30,000.00 in attorney fees himself, he suggested that only $3,000.00 in attorney fees was reasonable to award Landmark.

¶10 On February 24, 2021, the trial court entered a two-page order awarding $925.14 in costs and $51,331.50 in attorney fees to Landmark. The order provides in pertinent part:

. . . As for the Defendant's claim for attorney's fees the Court notes that there is no dispute that the hourly rate of Defense counsel is reasonable. Further, there is no dispute that this application should be reviewed under a 'loadstar' [sic]analysis. See State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115, ¶8. This case has had somewhat of a tortuous road to its conclusion having been heard by two trial judges and having been appealed twice. The complexity and hard fought nature of the case is [sic] should not be diminished by the claimed amount in dispute as evidence by the length and nature of the proceedings which included a combined forty one pages of appellate opinions to lead to this point. The parties further stated that they were not requesting a detailed analysis and order but rather just wanted a 'number.' . . .

Outcome:
The appellant, Carl Fleig, lost a lawsuit stemming from a contract dispute over roofing work done in conjunction with the purchase of a house. Subsequently, the trial court awarded $51,331.00 in attorney fees against Fleig. He appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's attorney fee award. We granted certiorari only to address whether the trial court's order awarding attorney fees evidences that the trial court complied with the directives of State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115, 598 P.2d 659. We hold that it does not.

See: 2024 OK 25

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: