Pat Lewis and Dwight Lewis hereinafter “Lewis” sued Dave Lucas and Dave Lucas Company, Inc. hereinafter “Lucas” for negligent construction of a swimming pool. The jury returned a verdict for Lewis. Lucas appeals, alleging 1 the trial court erred in introducing certain exhibits, 2 Lewis failed to carry his burden of proof to demonstrate a claim for negligent construction, 3 Lewis failed to demonstrate proximate cause, 4 the trial court erred in denying Lucas’ motion for directed verdict, and 5 the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees. While we agree with the trial court’s rulings on the first four issues, we find merit in Lucas’ argument that Lewis failed to sufficiently establish his claim for attorney fees. We therefore reverse as to that issue and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing to establish the appropriate amount of attorney fees to be awarded in this case. 1. Lucas contends the trial court erred in allowing into evidence two letters written by Lewis’ attorney and sent to Lucas. These letters were written on May 24, 2005 and July 28, 2005. Lucas did not object to the admission of two additional letters written by Lewis’ attorney and sent to Lucas on May 11, 2005 and May 16, 2005. According to Lucas, the May 24, 2005 and July 28, 2005 letters were not admissible because they constituted hearsay, were prejudicial, could be characterized as a view to compromise, and contained self-serving statements.1 We disagree. We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence only for an abuse of discretion.2 Here, all four letters establish an attempt by Lewis to get Lucas to respond to the problem with the swimming pool. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the May 24, 2005 and July 28, 2005 letters into evidence.
a. Hearsay. Contrary to Lucas’ argument, the letters are not hearsay. The letters were not offered for the truth of specific matters contained in the letters. They were offered to show that Lewis had attempted to contact Lucas about the problems with the pool installed by Lucas and to show that these attempts occurred prior to the filing of the lawsuit. As such, the letters were relevant and admissible under OCGA § 24-3-2 to explain conduct and ascertain motives.3
