With respect to the issues determined by the above judgment, the court finds:
[Set forth specific factual findings.]
Upon the basis of the foregoing factual findings, the court hereby certifies, in accordance with Rule 54(b)(1), Ark. R. Civ. P., that it has determined that there is no just reason for delay of the entry of a final judgment and that the court has and does hereby direct that the judgment shall be a final judgment for all purposes.
Certified this ______ day of _______ , _______ .
______________________________________
Judge
Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(B)
Addition to Reporter's Note, 1992 Amendment: The first sentence of Rule 54(b) is amended to expressly state the trial court's obligation to make findings of fact with respect to the required determination that there is "no just reason for delay" for the entry of judgment. The amendment reflects the Supreme Court's holding to that effect in Franklin v. Osca, Inc., 308 Ark. 409, 825 S.W.2d 812 (1992) (trial court "must factually set forth reasons ... explaining why a hardship or injustice would result if an appeal is not permitted").
Addition to Reporter's Notes, 1994 Amendment: Subdivision (d) of the rule is rewritten for purposes of clarity. No substantive change is intended. The original version of the rule was awkward and led to confusion. See, e.g., Wood v. Tyler, 317 Ark. 319, 877 S.W.2d 582 (1994).
Addition to Reporter's Notes, 1997 Amendment: New subdivision (e) establishes a procedure for presenting claims for attorney's fees, a frequently recurring form of litigation not initially contemplated by the rules. It is based on federal Rule 54(d)(2), as amended in 1993.
Paragraph (1) makes plain that the subdivision does not apply to attorneys' fees recoverable as an element of damages, as when sought under the terms of a contract. Such damages typically are to be claimed in a pleading and may involve issues to be resolved by a jury. Paragraph (2) provides a deadline for motions for attorneys' fees -14 days after final judgment unless the court or a statute specifies some other time. Prior law did not prescribe any specific time limit on claims for attorneys' fees. See Marsh & McLennan v. Herget, 321 Ark. 180, 900 S.W.2d 195 (1995).
One purpose of this provision is to assure that the opposing party is informed of the claim before the time for appeal has elapsed. Prompt filing affords an opportunity for the court to resolve fee disputes shortly after trial, while the services performed are freshly in mind. It also enables the court in appropriate cases to make its ruling on a fee request in time for any appellate review of a dispute over fees to proceed at the same time as review on the merits.
Filing a motion for fees under subdivision (e) does not affect the finality or appealability of a judgment. If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the court may rule on the claim for fees, defer its ruling on the motion, or deny the motion without prejudice and direct under paragraph (2) a new period for filing after the appeal has been resolved. A notice of appeal does not extend the time for filing a fee claim based on the initial judgment, but the court may effectively extend the period by permitting claims to be filed after resolution of the appeal. A new period for filing will automatically begin if a new judgment is entered following a reversal or remand by the appellate court or the granting of a motion under Rule 59.
The new subdivision does not require that the motion for attorneys' fees be supported at the time of filing with the evidentiary material bearing on the fees. This material must be submitted in due course, according to such schedule as the court may direct in light of the circumstances of the case. What is required is the filing of a motion sufficient to alert the adversary and the court that there is a claim for fees and the amount of such fees or a fair estimate.
If directed by the court, the moving party is required to disclose any fee agreement, including those between attorney and client, between attorneys sharing a fee to be awarded, and between adversaries made in partial settlement of a dispute where the settlement must be implemented by court action, as required by Rule 23 and similar provisions. This subdivision does not affect the practice in class action cases whereby claims for fees are presented in advance of hearings to consider approval of the proposed settlement, since the court is permitted to require submissions of fee claims in advance of the entry of judgment.
Paragraph (3) assures the parties of an opportunity to make an appropriate presentation with respect to issues involving the evaluation of legal services. In some cases, an evidentiary hearing may be needed, but this is not required in every case. The amount of time to be allowed for the preparation of submissions both in support of and in opposition to awards should be tailored to the particular case. The court is expressly authorized to make a determination of the liability for fees before receiving submissions by the parties bearing on the amount of an award. This option may be appropriate in actions in which the liability issue is doubtful and the evaluation issues are numerous and complex.
The court may order disclosure of additional information, such as that bearing on prevailing local rates or on the appropriateness of particular services for which compensation is sought. On rare occasion, the court may determine that discovery would be useful to the parties. Fee awards should be made in the form of a separate judgment under Rule 58 since such awards are subject to appellate review. To facilitate such review, paragraph (3) requires the court to set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law. It is anticipated that this explanation will be quite brief in most cases.
Paragraph (4) authorizes the court to refer issues regarding the amount of a fee to a master under Rule 53. This authorization eliminates any controversy as to whether such references are permitted under Rule 53(b) as "matters of account and difficult computation of damages." Paragraph (5) excludes from this rule the award of fees as sanctions for violations of these rules.
Addition to Reporter's Notes, 1999 Amendment: A new paragraph has been added to subdivision (d) defining the term "costs." A definition was deemed advisable in light of continuing confusion as to expenses that can be taxed as costs. See, e.g., Wood v. Tyler, 317 Ark. 319, 877 S.W.2d 582 (1994); Sutton v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 305 Ark. 231, 807 S.W.2d 905(1991).
Addition to Reporter's Notes, 2001 Amendment: Rule 54(b) has caused problems for lawyers and judges alike. See generally Watkins, The Mysteries of Rule 54(b), 1996 Ark. L. Notes 117. Although subdivision (b) has not been radically altered, the revisions are intended to emphasize the steps that must be taken to secure immediate appellate review. The subdivision has been divided into four numbered paragraphs, and the most significant change is the trial court's certificate required by paragraph (1). By virtue of paragraph (2), the absence of the certificate means that a final portion of a case involving multiple parties or claims is not immediately appealable. Except for requiring a certificate and setting out its form, paragraph (1) differs little from the first sentence of the prior version of subdivision (b). Similarly, paragraph (2) largely tracks the second sentence but has been amended to refer to the certificate. Paragraphs (3) and (4) are new but do not work any change in the law.