However, Because A Harassment Renewal Order Was Reversed, Fees For Those Efforts Were Not Allowable As Well As Routine Cost Recovery Because No Memorandum Of Costs Was Filed.
In litigation which has gone on for a while and generated several appeals, the dust may have finally settled with the appellate court opinion in George v. Hartman, Case Nos. H052049 et al. (6th Dist. Mar. 17, 2026) (unpublished).
Basically, Mr. George prevailed on civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) requests, including modification and renewal efforts, as well as prevailing on appeal in most instances except on the renewal request. The lower court awarded attorney’s fees and routine costs, including appellate fees, for Mr. George’s wins for these activities—the full ask to the tune of $56,380. Along the way, the appellate court reversed the renewal order obtained by Mr. George.
The Sixth District affirmed the modification fees and appellate fees (except those relating to the renewal request), but it reversed as a matter of law any fees relating to the renewal request and routine costs.
Appellant Mr. Hartman argued that the appellate fee award was infirm because Mr. George filed the motion before the remittitur issued even though Mr. Hartman had an opportunity to oppose the motion and the lower court ruled on the motion after the remittitur was issued. The appellate panel found there was no authority supporting the proposition that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on an appellate fees motion after a remittitur issued solely because the motion was filed before the remittitur, so the argument was rejected—all the more so because Mr. Hartman had the opportunity to oppose.
However, because the CHRO renewal was reversed, those components of fees were reversed as a matter of law.
With respect to modification order fees, Mr. Hartman argued that the fee motion was untimely filed. However, because there was no reporter’s transcript and the trial court still awarded fees, it had to be assumed the trial court implicitly agreed that Mr. George had been granted an extension of time to file the fee motion.
The routine costs were reversed as a matter of law because Mr. George did not file a memorandum of costs, which is a prerequisite so the other side can file a motion to strike and/or tax costs. In the end, the fee award affirmed amounted to $49,259.75, after striking the renewal fees and costs awards.