Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 377 S.E.2d 296 (S.C. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 377 S.E.2d 296 (S.C. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 13× by 9 distinct cases, 2009–2023 · 3 courts↑ Rising · …the general rule is that attorney's fees are not recoverable unless authorized by contract or statute. at p. 297 ✓
cited 11× by 5 distinct cases, 1993–2018 · 2 courts→ Stable · …where an attorney's services and their value are determined by the trier of fact, an appeal will not prevail if the findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence. at p. 296 ✓
cited 4× by 3 distinct cases, 2016–2023 · …where there is a contract, the award of attorney's fees is left to the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown. at p. 297 ✓
220 citation events (181 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Barbara L. Sarb v. Julie W. Phillips (scctapp, 2025-08-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 46 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Barbara L. Sarb v. Julie W. Phillips (5×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
S.C. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
where there is a contract, the award of attorneys' fees is left to the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Jessica Means v. Donald McCutcheon (4×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · quote attribution · 4 verbatim quotes · confidence high
where there is a contract, the award of attorney's fees is left to the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United Property & Casualty Insurance v. Couture
D.S.C. · 2022 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the general rule is that attorney's fees are not recoverable unless authorized by contract or statute.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Rhonda Lewis Meisner (3) (3×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence high
where there is a contract, the award of attorney's fees is left to the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Stow Away Storage, LLC v. Sisson (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2019 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
the general rule is that attorney's fees are not recoverable unless authorized by contract or statute.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) JRC Properties v. Dennis Corporation (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2018 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
where an attorney's services and their value are determined by the trier of fact, an appeal will not prevail if the findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Bristol Condominium v. Lucas (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2016 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
where an attorney's services and their value are determined by the trier of fact, an appeal will not prevail if the findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Williamson v. Middleton (12×) also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited as authority (rule)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · quote attribution · 4 verbatim quotes · confidence high
where an attorney's services and their value are determined by the trier of fact, an appeal will not prevail if the findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Owners Ins. Co. v. Warren Mech., LLC (2×)
D.S.C. · 2018 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
the general rule is that attorney's fees are not recoverable unless authorized by contract or statute.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Turner's Marina, LLC v. Paige Lorberbaum
S.C. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Owners' Ass'n v. Berger, 365 S.C. 234, 240 , 616 S.E.2d 431, 434 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Where there is a contract, the award of attorney's fees is left to the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown." (quoting Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 384 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989))).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Portrait Homes v. Pennsylvania National Mutual (3×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 384-85 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989). attorney's fees $1,790,049.10 was reasonable and would be awarded if the HOA had elected the remedy for the breach of the duties to defend and indemnify.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pilot Travel Centers LLC v. BarGib Enterprises Inc
D.S.C. · 2020 · confidence medium
Where a contract provides for the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs, “the award of attorney’s fees is left to the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown.” Id. (citing Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (S.C. 1989)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davis-Branch v. Jackson
S.C. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Owners' Ass'n v. Berger, 365 S.C. 234, 238 , 616 S.E.2d 431, 434 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Where there is a contract, the award of attorney's fees is left to the discretion of the trial [court] and will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown." (quoting Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 384 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989))); S.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Domnick v. Domnick
S.C. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
As to Frank's appeal, the trial court's order is affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Maybank v. BB&T Corp., 416 S.C. 541, 579-80 , 787 S.E.2d 498, 518 (2016) ("The decision to award or deny attorney['s] fees and costs will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc., 310 S.C. 492, 493 , 427 S.E.2d 659, 660 (1993) ("Where an attorney's services and their value are determined by the trier of fact, an appeal will not prevail if the findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence." (emphasis in original)); Baron…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Marks
Bankr. D.S.C. · 2016 · confidence medium
While “[c]onsideration should be given to all six criteria in establishing reasonable attorney’s fees[,] none of these six factors is controlling.” Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Lighty
Bankr. D.S.C. · 2014 · confidence medium
In South Carolina, as in most jurisdictions in the United States, “[t]he general rule is that attorney’s fees are not recoverable unless authorized by contract or statute.” Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rhett v. Gray
S.C. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 383 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) JASDIP Properties SC, LLC v. Estate of Richardson (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 383 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Associated Receivables v. Shropshier (4×) also: Cited "see"
S.C. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
See Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter , 297 S.C. 382, 383 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989) (noting attorney's fees are not recoverable unless authorized by contract or statute); id. at 384-85, 377 S.E.2d at 297 (stating that although no one factor is controlling, the trial court must consider the following six factors: (1) the nature, extent, and difficulty of the legal services rendered; (2) the time and labor necessarily devoted to the case; (3) the professional standing of counsel; (4) the contingency of compensation; (5) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; and …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) US BANK TRUST NAT. ASS'N v. Bell
S.C. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
"The general rule is that attorney's fees are not recoverable unless authorized by contract or statute." Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 383 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989) (citing Hegler v. Gulf Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) U.S. Bank Trust National Ass'n v. Bell
S.C. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
“The general rule is that attorney’s fees are not recoverable unless authorized by contract or statute.” Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 383 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989) (citing Hegler v. Gulf Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Laser Supply and Services, Inc. v. Orchard Park Associates (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 384 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Baumann v. Long Cove Club Owners Ass'n
S.C. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Later, 297 S.C. 382, 383 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Baumann v. LONG COVE CLUB OWNERS ASS'N
S.C. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 383 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) RV Resort v. BillyBob's Marina
S.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter , 297 S.C. 382, 383 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. v. Hartough
S.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Owners’ Ass’n v. Berger, 365 S.C. 234, 240 , 616 S.E.2d 431, 434 (Ct.App.2005) (citing Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 384 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hardaway Concrete Co. v. Hall Contracting Corp.
S.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 383 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Simpson v. Simpson
S.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter , 297 S.C. 382, 385 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Norris v. Mumaw
S.C. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Issue III: Wilder at 76, 497 S.E.2d at 733 (finding an issue not ruled upon by the trial judge is not preserved for appeal); Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter , 297 S.C. 382, 384 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989) (where there is a contract, the award of attorney’s fees is left to the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Seabrook Island Property Owners' Ass'n v. Berger
S.C. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
“Where there is a contract, the award of attorney’s fees is left to the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown.” Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 384 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989) (citing Smith v. Smith, 264 S.C. 624 , 216 S.E.2d 541 (1975); Nelson v. Merritt, 281 S.C. 126 , 314 S.E.2d 840 (Ct.App.1984)); accord Blumberg, 310 S.C. at 493 , 427 S.E.2d at 660 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Griffin v. White Oak Properties
S.C. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
“The amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded in a particular case is within the discretion of the trial judge provided the award is reasonable.” Baron Data Systems, Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 385-86 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 298 (1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SCE&G v. Sanders
S.C. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
“Where an attorney’s services and their value are determined by the trier of fact, an appeal will not prevail if the findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence.” Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter , 297 S.C. 382, 384 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) The Anchor Bank. v. Babb
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter , 297 S.C. 382, 385-86 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 298 (1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fici v. Koon
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
A. Under the Contract “The general rule is that attorney’s fees are not recoverable unless authorized by contract or statute.” Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter , 297 S.C. 382, 383-84 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gordon v. Drews
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 385-86 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 298 (1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hook v. Bishop
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Baron Data Systems, Inc., v. Loter , 297 S.C. 382, 383 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vick v. South Carolina Department of Transportation
S.C. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
“Where an attorney’s services and their value *484 are determined by the trier of fact, an appeal will not prevail if the findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence.” Baron Data Systems, Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 384 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carolina Chemical Equipment Co. v. Muckenfuss (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Baron Data Systems, Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 384 , 377 S.E. (2d) 296, 297 (1989).
discussed Cited "see" Insurance Office of America, Inc. v. 1221 Bower, LLC (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382, 383 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (1989) ("The general rule is that attorney's fees are not recoverable unless authorized by contract or statute."); Laser Supply & Servs., Inc. v. Orchard Park Assocs., 382 S.C. 326, 340 , 676 S.E.2d 139, 147 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The review of attorney fees awarded pursuant to a contract is governed by an abuse of discretion standard."); id. ("An appellate court will not reverse an award unless it is based on an error of law or is without any evidentiary support."); Blumberg, 310 S.C. at 494, 427 S.E.2d at 660 (stating the…
discussed Cited "see" Ellington v. Hayward Baker Inc
D.S.C. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809 , 814–15 (1994); see Baron Data Sys., Inc. v. Loter, 377 S.E.2d 296, 297 (S.C.1989) (“The general rule is that attorney’s fees are not recoverable unless authorized by contract or statute.”).
discussed Cited "see" Liberty Mut. Ins. v. EMPLOYEE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (2×)
D.S.C. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baron Data Systems, Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 298 (1989).
discussed Cited "see" Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Employee Resource Management, Inc. (2×)
D.S.C. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baron Data Systems, Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382 , 377 S.E.2d 296, 298 (1989).
discussed Cited "see" Rice v. Multimedia, Inc. (2×)
S.C. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baron Data Systems, Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382 , 377 S.E. (2d) 296 (1989).
discussed Cited "see" South Carolina National Bank v. S & L Investment Partnership (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Davant, 292 S.C. 172 , 355 S.E. (2d) 293 (Ct. App. 1987) (trial court may determine the reasonableness of attorney fees regardless of the percentages agreed upon by the parties and the appealing party must demonstrate the amount of fees awarded was unreasonable); see Dedes, v. Strickland, _ S.C. _, 414 S.E. (2d) 134 (1992) (citing Baron Data Systems Inc. v. Loter, 297 S.C. 382 , 377 S.E. (2d) 296 (1989) for a discussion of the factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of attorney fees).
discussed Cited "see" Noisette v. Ismail
S.C. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baron Data Sysems, Inc. v. Loter, 297 S. C. 382, 377 S. E. (2d) 296 (1989) (listing the factors to be considered in determining whether an attorney fees award is reasonable); cf. Freeman v. A. & M.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pappas v. Ollie's Seafood Grille & Bar (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
Bank v. McLean , 314 S.C. 361, 363 , 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (holding an issue will be deemed abandoned when the appellant fails to provide arguments or supporting authority). [20] See Weeks v. McMillan , 291 S.C. 287, 292 , 353 S.E.2d 289, 292 (Ct. App. 1987) (“Where a decision is based on alternative grounds, either of which independent of the other is sufficient to support it, the decision will not be reversed even if one of the grounds is erroneous.”). [21] Rule 225(a), SCACR. [22] Id. [23] Jackson v. Speed , 326 S.C. 289, 311 , 486 S.E.2d 750, 761 (1997). [24] See Cox v. Fleetwood …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BARON DATA SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioner
v.
Phillip H. LOTER, Gary N. Smith, and Melvin Gross, D/B/A Gross, Loter & Smith, a Partnership, Respondents
22965.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Feb 21, 1989.
377 S.E.2d 296
1989 S.C. LEXIS 43
Harry A. Swagart, III, and James H. Lengel, of Swagart & Lengel, P.A., Columbia, for petitioner., Francis T. Draine, Columbia, for respondents.
Chandler, Finney, Gregory, Harwell, Toal.
Cited by 73 opinions  |  Published
3 passages pin-cited by 6 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 92%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of South Caro… (9) · D. South Carolina (2)
Finney, Justice:

[*383] This appeal originated from a post-trial order awarding attorney’s fees and costs to petitioner, Baron Data Systems (Baron). The respondents, Melvin Gross, Phillip H. Loter, and Gary N. Smith (GLS), appealed on the grounds that the circuit court’s award of $26,000 in attorney fees was an abuse of discretion. Baron cross-appealed from the same order on the grounds that it should have received additional attorney fees of $7,390 for 73.9 hours of work. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court’s order.

This case began when Baron filed a summons and complaint seeking to recover damages and attorney’s fees pursuant to two equipment leases between petitioner and the respondents, which leases Baron alleged had been breached by the respondents. Petitioner prayed for actual damages of $10,532.68 and liquidated damages of $69,155.25. Respondents filed an amended answer setting forth numerous affirmative defenses and counterclaims seeking in excess of $500,000 in liquidated damages.

Baron moved for summary judgment. The court dismissed respondents’ counterclaims for negligence and product defects and its affirmative defenses of laches and contributory negligence. No appeal was taken from the order granting partial summary judgment.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of Baron for $16,161 actual damages. No appeal was taken. At a subsequent hearing, the trial court awarded Baron $26,000 in attorney fees and $3,252.51 in costs. Baron was denied an additional $7,390 in fees for 73.9 hours devoted to counterclaims. Both sides appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the fees were excessive, but did not specifically address the issue of petitioner’s attorney fees for the additional 73.9 hours. There is some uncertainty whether the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order on this issue also.

Petitioner asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees was excessive and seeks clarification concerning the trial court’s denial of $7,390 in fees.

The general rule is that attorney’s fees are not recoverable unless authorized by contract or statute. Hegler v. Gulf [*384] Insurance Co., 270 S. C. 548, 243 S. E. (2d) 443 (1978). The contracts between the parties provided for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in the event of default by the respondents. When there is a contract, the award of attorney’s fees is left to the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Smith v. Smith, 264 S. C. 624, 216 S. E. (2d) 541 (1975); Nelson v. Merritt, 281 S. C. 126, 314 S. E. (2d) 840 (App. 1984). Where an attorney’s services and their value are determined by the trier of fact, an appeal will not prevail if the findings of fact are supported by any competent evidence, Singleton v. Collins, 251 S. C. 208, 161 S. E. (2d) 246 (1968).

In awarding reasonable attorney’s fees, there are six factors to be considered. See, e.g., Wood v. Wood, 269 S.C. 600, 239 S. E. (2d) 315 (1977); Bentrim v. Bentrim, 282 S. C. 333, 318 S. E. (2d) 131 (App. 1984). Consideration should be given to all six criteria in establishing reasonable attorney’s fees; none of these six factors is controlling. Darden v. Witham, 263 S. C. 183, 209 S. E. (2d) 42 (1974).

In making its determination, the trial court articulated each of the six factors.

(1) The Nature, Extent and Difficulty of the Legal Services Rendered.

Upon its evaluation of the nature, extent and difficulty of the legal services, the trial court determined that Baron had to expend considerably more time and effort on the case because the defendants had transformed a simple collection action into complex litigation.

(2) The Time and Labor Necessarily Devoted to the Case.

The trial court concluded that “a review of the statements and affidavits of Baron’s trial attorney indicate clearly that the time and labor spent were reasonable and not duplicative.” The respondents did not dispute this conclusion.

(3) The Professional Standing of Counsel.

The circuit court’s determination that Baron’s trial attorney is an experienced, skilled attorney, of high professional standing in the community was based upon a careful review of the affidavits of Baron’s expert and its trial attorney, which included the attorney’s resume. Respondents did not contest the trial court’s determination.

[*385] (4) The Contingency of Compensation.

Not applicable since this was not a contingency case.

(5) The Fee Customarily Charged in the Locality for Similar Legal Services.

Based upon a review of the attorney’s resume, affidavits and its familiarity with attorney fees customarily charged in this legal community, the trial court found that the rate of $100 per hour was appropriate.

(6) The Beneficial Results Obtained.

The trial court decided that the total benefits obtained by Baron include a sizeable judgment ($16,151) and the avoidance of nearly half a million dollars in liability on the counterclaims. The Court of Appeals concluded that Baron sought over $70,000 and recovered only $16,151, thus the beneficial result was not significant.

A reading of the Court of Appeals’ opinion indicates that the amount of the monetary judgment was the critical factor upon which the Court of Appeals relied in making its determination. However, as set forth above, the amount of recovery is but one factor to be considered in determining reasonable attorney’s fees. Darden v. Witham, supra.

Courts in other jurisdictions have awarded attorney fees which exceeded the verdict obtained. In Erickson Enterprises, Inc., v. Lois Wohl & Son, Inc., 422 So. (2d) 1085 (Fla. App. 1982), the prayer was for $4,620.60, the verdict was $3,885 and the appellate court upheld a fee award of $6,000. In Michael-Regan Co., Inc., v. Lindell, 527 F. (2d) 653, 656 (9th Cir. 1975), the court upheld a verdict (on a counterclaim) for a total of $17,907.26, exclusive of interest, and awarded $18,543 in attorney’s fees. See also Osborn v. Sinclair Refining Co., 207 F. Supp. 856 (D. Md. 1962) (fee award of $14,000, damages of $325); and Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 479 F. Supp. 1263 (N. D. Cal. 1979) (fees of $54,079; nominal damages of $6).

We conclude that the trial court properly applied the relevant factors and that its order is supported by the record.

With regard to the 73.9 hours Baron’s attorney devoted exclusively to work on the counterclaims, we sustain the trial court’s findings. The amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded in a particular case is within the[*386] discretion of the trial judge provided the award is reasonable. Farmers and Merchants Bank v. Fargnoli, 274 S. C. 23, 260 S. E. (2d) 185 (1979). The trial court meticulously reviewed petitioner’s fee request in accordance with the factors set forth by the Supreme Court and determined that 260 hours was the maximum compensable time. We find the attorney’s fee award of $26,000 reasonable and hold that the denial of an additional $7,390 in attorney’s fee was not an abuse of discretion.

For the foregoing reasons the Court of Appeals is reversed and the circuit court’s order is reinstated.

Reversed.

Gregory, C. J., and Harwell, Chandler and Toal, JJ., concur.