Opinion ID: 2525160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Easement Agreement's Fee Provision Applies.

Text: Civil Rule 82 provides for the award of partial attorney's fees to the prevailing party in litigation as a matter of course. But Civil Rule 82 may be overridden by agreements (or statutory provision) concerning attorney's fees. [2] The provision in the easement agreement concerning attorney's fees reads as follows: Should suit or legal action be instituted to enforce any of the foregoing terms, covenants, conditions, encumbrances, or easements, the losing party, in addition to any judgement, order, or decree, agrees to pay the prevailing party its reasonable attorney fees and court costs as may be awarded by a court adjudging or decreeing such suit or action. Contract provisions such as that in the easement agreement that call for reasonable attorney's fees are interpreted as calling for full reasonable attorney's fees. [3] By contrast, the objective of Civil Rule 82 is to award partial attorney's fees. [4] The Gambles argue that the attorney's fees provision in the easement agreement does not apply to the present case because theirs was an action for reformation, not an action to enforce the terms of the easement agreement. Northstore counters that the suit was a contest over the enforceability of the recorded easement. Northstore notes that the case was concluded with a declaration that the recorded easement remains in full force and effect according to its terms. We believe that Northstore has the better of the arguments. Its defense against the Gambles' suit for reformation was similar to a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the easement agreement was valid. Northstore, in fact, filed such a counterclaim, but dismissed it by agreement prior to trial. But this did not change the issues actually tried. The trial focused on the question of whether the recorded easement was enforceable according to its terms. Arguably there is a difference between a suit to enforce an easement agreement and a suit to reform such an agreement. An enforcement suit presupposes an alleged violation of the agreement. The court must then determine whether such a violation has occurred. By contrast, a reformation suit does not necessarily involve a violation. Instead, the party seeking reformation contends that the written agreement does not accurately reflect the parties' actual agreement and seeks a decree conforming the written agreement to the actual agreement. A Florida court found this distinction determinative in concluding that a contract's fee provision did not apply to an action for reformation because it was not an action to enforce the contract. [5] But there is another, broader, meaning of the contractual language here involved. A suit ... to enforce any of the ... terms of an agreement can refer to a suit to confirm the validity of the terms of an agreement in the face of a challenge. [6] We believe that in this sense Northstore's defense can be regarded as enforcement of the terms of the agreement. This interpretation has been accepted in other jurisdictions as well. [7] The Gambles' action for reformation was the opposite of an enforcement action. They asked that the agreement as recorded not be enforced, prompting Northstore's defense that the agreement was valid and enforceable as written. Although Northstore's defense was not itself a suit or legal action, it could have been framed as a counterclaim. This fact, and the fact that for a time the defense was expressed in a counterclaim, illustrates that the difference between a suit and a defense to a suit can be of little consequence. Here, we believe that Northstore's defense, which resulted in a declaration affirming the validity of the recorded easement, fairly comes within the agreement's provision concerning attorney's fees.