Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 850, 853 (Tenn.1985). Therefore, we conclude that, under AR.S. § 12-1514, the trial court may make an award for attorney’s fees incurred in the confirmation proceedings themselves. As the attorney’s fees awarded by the trial court in this case included fees for both the arbitration and the confirmation proceedings, the judgment must be modified to exclude fees attributable to the arbitration itself. CONCLUSION AND DISPOSITION W.E.S. requests attorney’s fees incurred for the appeal. W.E.S. was only partially successful in the appeal. The arbitration award was confirmed, but W.E.S. lost on the lion’s share of attorney’s fees, which has been the core issue in this case for some time. Cf. Coldwell Banker v. Camelback Office Park, 156 Ariz. 214, 223-24, 751 P.2d 530, 539-40 (App.1987) (<HOLDING>), vacated in part on other grounds, 156 Ariz. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it is possible to have no successful party when one prevails on the complaint and the other prevails on the counterclaim (B) holding that where complaint seeks greater damages than counterclaim and court denied relief to both parties there is no successful party (C) holding that a party may recover attorneys fees under section 38001 only if the party prevails on a cause of action for which attorneys fees are available and recovers damages (D) holding that successful party is one who is the ultimate prevailing party in the litigation (E) holding attorneys fees not generally recoverable unless party prevails under cause of action for which attorneys fees are recoverable and damages are recovered
Output (English): holding that successful party is one who is the ultimate prevailing party in the litigation