American rule in Alabama

2015See Reynolds v. First Alabanza Bank of Montgomery, N.A., 471 So.2d 1238 (Ala.1985), for an in-depth discussion of the exception to the ‘American rule’ of awarding attorney fees.

2007Finally, King Development argues that the award of an attorney fee to Eslami was unauthorized by Alabama law. *Page 57 In Eagerton v. Williams , 433 So.2d 436 , 450 (Ala. 1983), the supreme court stated: "In Alabama, attorneys' fees are recoverable only where authorized by statute, when provided in a contract, or by special equity, such as in a proceeding where the efforts of an attorney create a fund out of which fees may be paid." This rule is known as "the American rule." Reynolds v. First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N.A. , 471 So.2d 1238 , 1240 (Ala. 1985).

2014“The arbitrator’s authority is limited to the scope of these Rules.” Guardian argues that the BBB rules expressly limit the arbitrator’s authority to the scope of those rules and that the rules authorize an arbitrator to award only a remedy “that is permitted under applicable law.” The construction agreement provides that the applicable law in this case is “the law of the State of Alabama,” and, Guardian argues, “[i]t is well settled that ‘ “Alabama follows the ‘American rule.’ ” ’ ” Jones v. Regions Bank, 25 So.3d 427, 441 (Ala.2009) (quoting City of Bessemer v. McClain, 957 So.2d 1061, 1078

2014We first note that “ ‘[i]t is well settled that “ ‘Alabama follows the “American rule.” ’ ” ’ Jones v. Regions Bank, 25 So.3d 427, 441 (Ala.2009) (quoting City of Bessemer v. McClain, 957 So.2d 1061, 1078 (Ala.2006), quoting in turn Battle v. City of Birmingham, 656 So.2d 344, 347 (Ala.1995)).

2003These have been termed the `common fund' and `common benefit' exceptions to the American rule." 718 So.2d at 702 (citations omitted).

2003These have been termed the `common fund' and `common benefit' exceptions to the American rule." 718 So.2d at 702 (citations omitted).

2014“The arbitrator’s authority is limited to the scope of these Rules.” Guardian argues that the BBB rules expressly limit the arbitrator’s authority to the scope of those rules and that the rules authorize an arbitrator to award only a remedy “that is permitted under applicable law.” The construction agreement provides that the applicable law in this case is “the law of the State of Alabama,” and, Guardian argues, “[i]t is well settled that ‘ “Alabama follows the ‘American rule.’ ” ’ ” Jones v. Regions Bank, 25 So.3d 427, 441 (Ala.2009) (quoting City of Bessemer v. McClain, 957 So.2d 1061, 1078

2014We first note that “ ‘[i]t is well settled that “ ‘Alabama follows the “American rule.” ’ ” ’ Jones v. Regions Bank, 25 So.3d 427, 441 (Ala.2009) (quoting City of Bessemer v. McClain, 957 So.2d 1061, 1078 (Ala.2006), quoting in turn Battle v. City of Birmingham, 656 So.2d 344, 347 (Ala.1995)).

2014“The arbitrator’s authority is limited to the scope of these Rules.” Guardian argues that the BBB rules expressly limit the arbitrator’s authority to the scope of those rules and that the rules authorize an arbitrator to award only a remedy “that is permitted under applicable law.” The construction agreement provides that the applicable law in this case is “the law of the State of Alabama,” and, Guardian argues, “[i]t is well settled that ‘ “Alabama follows the ‘American rule.’ ” ’ ” Jones v. Regions Bank, 25 So.3d 427, 441 (Ala.2009) (quoting City of Bessemer v. McClain, 957 So.2d 1061, 1078

2014We first note that “ ‘[i]t is well settled that “ ‘Alabama follows the “American rule.” ’ ” ’ Jones v. Regions Bank, 25 So.3d 427, 441 (Ala.2009) (quoting City of Bessemer v. McClain, 957 So.2d 1061, 1078 (Ala.2006), quoting in turn Battle v. City of Birmingham, 656 So.2d 344, 347 (Ala.1995)).

2005Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. , 396 U.S. 375 , 391-93 , 90 S.Ct. 616 , 625-26 , 24 L.Ed.2d 593 (1970), states the rule as follows: "While the general American rule is that attorney's fees are not ordinarily recoverable as costs, both the courts and Congress have developed exceptions to this rule for situations in which overriding considerations indicate the need for such a recovery.

2005Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. , 396 U.S. 375 , 391-93 , 90 S.Ct. 616 , 625-26 , 24 L.Ed.2d 593 (1970), states the rule as follows: "While the general American rule is that attorney's fees are not ordinarily recoverable as costs, both the courts and Congress have developed exceptions to this rule for situations in which overriding considerations indicate the need for such a recovery.

2015Under the American rule, attorney fees are recoverable by a party “only when ‘authorized by statute, when provided in a contract, or by special equity.’” Mitchell v. Huntsville Hosp., 598 So.2d 1358, 1360 (Ala.1992) (quoting, among other cases, Eagerton v. Williams, 433 So.2d 436, 450 (Ala.1983)).

2015Under the American rule, attorney fees are recoverable by a party “only when ‘authorized by statute, when provided in a contract, or by special equity.’” Mitchell v. Huntsville Hosp., 598 So.2d 1358, 1360 (Ala.1992) (quoting, among other cases, Eagerton v. Williams, 433 So.2d 436, 450 (Ala.1983)).

2014Classroom-direct, com, LLC v. Draphix, LLC, 992 So.2d 692, 710 (Ala.2008).

2014Classroom-direct, com, LLC v. Draphix, LLC, 992 So.2d 692, 710 (Ala.2008).

2006Membership Corp., 853 So.2d 946, 952 (Ala.2003) (discussing the "common fund” and "common benefit” exceptions to the American rule that each party bears the responsibility of paying its own attorney fees).

2006Membership Corp., 853 So.2d 946, 952 (Ala.2003) (discussing the "common fund” and "common benefit” exceptions to the American rule that each party bears the responsibility of paying its own attorney fees).

2006Reynolds v. First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N.A., 471 So.2d 1238 (Ala.1985)." In Battle , we cited with approval Bell v. Birmingham News Co., 576 So.2d 669 (Ala.Civ.App.1991), in which the Court of Civil Appeals, recognizing a benefit to the public and rejecting a requirement of a finding of bad faith, upheld an attorney-fee award in proceedings brought by a newspaper against a city council challenging its failure to comply with the open-meetings law (§§ 13A-14-2, 11-43-45, and 11-43-49, Ala.Code 1975).

1998Reynolds v. First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N.A. , 471 So.2d 1238 (Ala. 1985). . . . [U]nder the principles stated in Bell [v. Birmingham News Co. , 576 So.2d 669 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991)], and Brown [v. State , 565 So.2d 585 (Ala. 1990)], the fact that litigation has not produced a monetary recovery does not preclude an award of attorney fees, if the litigation results in a benefit to the general public." Battle v. City of Birmingham , 656 So.2d 344 , 347 (Ala. 1995).

2003Ex parte Alabama State Bd. of Educ. , 810 So.2d 773 , 775 (Ala. 2001); Ex parte Horn , 718 So.2d 694 (Ala. 1998); Brown v. State , 565 So.2d 585 (Ala. 1990).

1998Reynolds v. First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N.A. , 471 So.2d 1238 (Ala. 1985). . . . [U]nder the principles stated in Bell [v. Birmingham News Co. , 576 So.2d 669 (Ala.Civ.App. 1991)], and Brown [v. State , 565 So.2d 585 (Ala. 1990)], the fact that litigation has not produced a monetary recovery does not preclude an award of attorney fees, if the litigation results in a benefit to the general public." Battle v. City of Birmingham , 656 So.2d 344 , 347 (Ala. 1995).

2013Although these arguments present the positive benefits conferred by the American rule, these arguments do not explain why the rule exists. .One of the cases cited in Smith was Ex parte Smith, 34 Ala. 455 (1859).

2013Although these arguments present the positive benefits conferred by the American rule, these arguments do not explain why the rule exists. .One of the cases cited in Smith was Ex parte Smith, 34 Ala. 455 (1859).

2015Under the American rule, attorney fees are recoverable by a party “only when ‘authorized by statute, when provided in a contract, or by special equity.’” Mitchell v. Huntsville Hosp., 598 So.2d 1358, 1360 (Ala.1992) (quoting, among other cases, Eagerton v. Williams, 433 So.2d 436, 450 (Ala.1983)).

2015Under the American rule, attorney fees are recoverable by a party “only when ‘authorized by statute, when provided in a contract, or by special equity.’” Mitchell v. Huntsville Hosp., 598 So.2d 1358, 1360 (Ala.1992) (quoting, among other cases, Eagerton v. Williams, 433 So.2d 436, 450 (Ala.1983)).

2003We cannot *Page 206 conclude that Waldrop's litigation benefited all children enrolled in Alabama's public schools to the level required to justify an attorney-fee award under the common-benefit exception [to the American rule]." State Bd. of Educ. v. Waldrop , 840 So.2d at 901-02 (emphasis added).

2003We cannot *Page 206 conclude that Waldrop's litigation benefited all children enrolled in Alabama's public schools to the level required to justify an attorney-fee award under the common-benefit exception [to the American rule]." State Bd. of Educ. v. Waldrop , 840 So.2d at 901-02 (emphasis added).

1989The "reasonable use" rule was enunciated in Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron Co. v. Wilkes , 231 Ala. 511 , 165 So. 764 (1936) ( Sloss I ), and Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron Co. v. Wilkes , 236 Ala. 173 , 181 So. 276 (1938) ( Sloss II ). 1 The Court in Sloss I stated: "[Where a landowner who] is conducting any sort of operations to which its land is adapted in an ordinary and careful manner, and as a consequence percolating water is drained, affecting the surface owner's water supply, either of that or adjoining land, no liability for his damage exists.

1989The "reasonable use" rule was enunciated in Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron Co. v. Wilkes , 231 Ala. 511 , 165 So. 764 (1936) ( Sloss I ), and Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron Co. v. Wilkes , 236 Ala. 173 , 181 So. 276 (1938) ( Sloss II ). 1 The Court in Sloss I stated: "[Where a landowner who] is conducting any sort of operations to which its land is adapted in an ordinary and careful manner, and as a consequence percolating water is drained, affecting the surface owner's water supply, either of that or adjoining land, no liability for his damage exists.

2014P., which provides that, “[e]xcept when express provision therefor is made in a statute, costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” Our Rule 54(d) is modeled on Rule 54(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., and, in Anderson v. Griffin, 397 F.3d 515, 522 (7th Cir.2005), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit offered an explanation for the differing treatment of court costs and attorney fees under the American rule: “Last, the plaintiffs challenge the award of court costs pursuant to Fed.

2014P., which provides that, “[e]xcept when express provision therefor is made in a statute, costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” Our Rule 54(d) is modeled on Rule 54(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., and, in Anderson v. Griffin, 397 F.3d 515, 522 (7th Cir.2005), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit offered an explanation for the differing treatment of court costs and attorney fees under the American rule: “Last, the plaintiffs challenge the award of court costs pursuant to Fed.

2014According to the “American rule,” “[i]n the absence of contract, statute, or recognized ground of equity, there is no inherent right to have attorney’s fees paid by opposing side.” Johnson v. Gerald, 216 Ala. 581, 582 , 113 So. 447, 448 (1927).

2014According to the “American rule,” “[i]n the absence of contract, statute, or recognized ground of equity, there is no inherent right to have attorney’s fees paid by opposing side.” Johnson v. Gerald, 216 Ala. 581, 582 , 113 So. 447, 448 (1927).

2014Co., 118 So.3d 693, 694 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (The “common-fund doctrine” is an “exception to the so-called ‘American rule,’ which generally bars awards of attorney fees to prevailing parties, in the context of a dispute between an injured insured party and a subrogated insurance carrier over whether the carrier is responsible for a pro rata share of the insured’s attorney fees incurred in the process of obtaining a settlement payment against which the carrier has asserted a right of reimbursement.”).

2014Classroomdirect.com, LLC v. Draphix, LLC, 992 So.2d 692, 710 (Ala.2008).” Guardian Builders, LLC v. Uselton, 154 So.3d 964, 970 (Ala.2014).

2014Classroomdirect.com, LLC v. Draphix, LLC, 992 So.2d 692, 710 (Ala.2008).” Guardian Builders, LLC v. Uselton, 154 So.3d 964, 970 (Ala.2014).

2014Moreover, we are not convinced by the Useltons’ argument that BBB Rule 29.A providing that the arbitrator “is not bound to apply legal principles in reaching what the arbitrator considers to be a fair resolution” is in conflict with, preempts, or creates ambiguity when considered in conjunction with, BBB Rule 3 limiting the arbitrator to awarding only those remedies “permitted under applicable law.” Written documents “are to be construed as a whole so as to harmonize their parts whenever possible.” Dudley v. Fridge, 443 So.2d 1207, 1211 (Ala.1983).

2014Moreover, we are not convinced by the Useltons’ argument that BBB Rule 29.A providing that the arbitrator “is not bound to apply legal principles in reaching what the arbitrator considers to be a fair resolution” is in conflict with, preempts, or creates ambiguity when considered in conjunction with, BBB Rule 3 limiting the arbitrator to awarding only those remedies “permitted under applicable law.” Written documents “are to be construed as a whole so as to harmonize their parts whenever possible.” Dudley v. Fridge, 443 So.2d 1207, 1211 (Ala.1983).

2013See also Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718 , 87 S.Ct. 1404 , 18 L.Ed.2d 475 (1967) (arguing "in support of the American Rule” that one should not be discouraged from prosecuting or defending against a suit because of the uncertainty of litigation, that the poor might be unjustly discouraged from defending their rights for fear of paying their opponents’ fees, and that determining “reasonable attorney’s fees” in every case would unduly burden judicial administration).

2013See also Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718 , 87 S.Ct. 1404 , 18 L.Ed.2d 475 (1967) (arguing "in support of the American Rule” that one should not be discouraged from prosecuting or defending against a suit because of the uncertainty of litigation, that the poor might be unjustly discouraged from defending their rights for fear of paying their opponents’ fees, and that determining “reasonable attorney’s fees” in every case would unduly burden judicial administration).