In Powers v Brown, a published Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, plaintiff sued defendant for conversion after defendant repossessed and sold an automobile plaintiff purchased from defendant under the conversion statute, MCL Sec 600.2919a. Plaintiff obtained a judgment and sought a recovery of its reasonable attorney fees under the statute. The trial court started an analysis under the framework of Smith v Khouri and Pirgu United Servs Auto Assn by determining that the hourly rate and number of hours expended were reasonable, but they reduced the attorney fees to the maximum amount which could have been obtained on a 1/3 contingency fee, because the case was a contingency case. Plaintiff appealed, and the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for additional consideration.
After determining a reasonable hourly rate and number of hours expended, the Khouri/Pirgu analysis requires the court to consider at least 8 other factors in determining a reasonable attorney fee. The trial court erred by considering only one of the 8 factors, whether the matter was a contingency fee or hourly case. The case was remanded to the trial court to consider the other factors, as well as any other relevant factors.