In Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc. (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 143, 146, 569 N.E.2d 464 at 146, the Supreme Court of Ohio further held that when awarding reasonable attorney fees pursuant to R.C. 1345.09(F)(2), to enable an appellate court to conduct a meaningful review, "the trial court must state the basis for the fee determination. Absent such a statement, it is not possible for an appellate court to conduct a meaningful review." In this vein, the court set forth a procedure for a court to follow in determining reasonable attorney fees: "the trial court should first calculate the number of hours reasonably expended on the case times an hourly fee, and then may modify that calculation by application of the factors listed in DR 2-106(B). These factors are: the time and labor involved in maintaining the litigation; the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; the professional skill required to perform the necessary legal services; the attorney's ability to accept other cases; the fee customarily charged; the amount involved and the results obtained; any necessary time limitations; the nature and length of the attorney/client relationship; the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; and whether the fee is fixed or contingent. All factors may not be applicable in all cases and the trial court has the discretion to determine which factors to apply, and in what manner that application will affect the initial calculation." Id. at 145-146. Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota Inc., arose out of a claim for attorney's fees made by Cheryl Bittner ("Bittner") against a car dealer. Id. Bittner gave the car dealer a $ 1,000 deposit to apply toward her purchase of an automobile, after Bittner and the car dealer had agreed on a $ 10,500 purchase price. Id. Later that same day, the car dealer sold the automobile Bittner had purchased to someone else for $ 1,000 more than Bittner had agreed to pay. Id. Bittner filed a lawsuit against the car dealer under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act ("the Act"), claiming that the car dealer had violated the Act by failing to give her a receipt for her deposit; she also alleged a cause of action for breach of contract. Id. On the morning of trial, after about eight months of negotiations, the car dealer and Bittner agreed to settle the case for $ 3,500, exclusive of attorney's fees. Id. The Act provided that "the court may award to the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee limited to the work reasonably performed, if . . . the supplier has knowingly committed an act or practice that violated this chapter." Id. Bittner requested $ 10,200 in attorney's fees. Id. After conducting a hearing, the trial court awarded plaintiff $ 7,115 in attorney's fees. Id. The Court of Appeals for Butler County reversed the trial court and held that one of the most important factors to be taken into account when considering the reasonableness of a fee award is the relationship of the fee award to the amount recovered. Id. The appellate court directed the trial court to consider "whether the amount of fees requested could be reasonably charged to a client in the absence of a statutory provision for recovery of fees from the adversary." Id. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the intermediate appellate court. Id. at 467.