10-2600 & 10-3571 Matthews v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., Inc.

Listen to this article

Contracts
Fee-shifting provisions

Inability to pay is not a defense to an award of attorney fees, where the contract contained a fee-shifting provision.

“Matthews argues that the award of attorney’s fees was inequitable because she made a good faith claim, and she cannot afford to pay the fees. But, as the district judge noted, the fee-shifting provision of the Agreement does not provide an exception for financial hardship or good faith. Unless the provision is the product of unequal bargaining power, courts generally will not dispute the fairness of such provisions. Berthold Types Ltd. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., 186 F. Supp. 2d 834, 837 (N.D.Ill. 2002) (citing Medcom, 200 F.3d at 520; Balcor, 73 F.3d at 153); see, e.g., United States, for the use of C.J.C., Inc. v. Western States Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 834 F.2d 1533, 1548 (10th Cir. 1987) (‘[W]here contracting parties have agreed that a breaching party will be liable for attorneys’ fees, the purpose of the award is to give the parties the benefit of that bargain, and the court’s responsibility is to enforce that bargain’). This is not a case in which one party had unequal bargaining power, and no equitable requirement applies to the attorney’s fee under the Agreement. Therefore, the district judge correctly found that Matthews’ final claim also fails.”
“A moment ago, we noted that the fees here are ‘unquestionably, and unfortunately, very high.’ What else can one say about a staggering figure like $563,021.39 in a case like this? But whether even a portion of those fees are collectable is not a matter about which we can be concerned.”

Affirmed.

10-2600 & 10-3571 Matthews v. Wisconsin Energy Corp., Inc.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stadtmueller, J., Evans, J.

Full Text