Opinion ID: 1161670
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the Trial Court Abuse Its Discretion in Awarding Attorney's Fees and Costs to Fred Meyer?

Text: An award of attorney's fees will only be reversed for an abuse of discretion, which exists if the award is arbitrary, capricious, manifestly unreasonable, or the result of an improper motive. [17] Questions as to the reasonableness of fees awarded under Civil Rule 82 are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. [18] The trial court awarded Fred Meyer $54,233.85 in feesthirty percent of its total fees, pursuant to Rule 82(b)(2)and $10,798.21 in costs. In doing so, the trial court made no independent fee calculation but awarded Fred Meyer all of its requested fees. The clerk of court did provide its own calculation of costs. Belluomini contests several components of this total, amounting to $47,747.50.

Belluomini opposes the award of attorney's fees for Fred Meyer's motions for summary judgment, totaling $32,186.50, because those motions were unsuccessful. Fred Meyer defends the fee award, asserting that it did not have to prevail to be awarded fees. We have addressed this question squarely, in Gold Bondholders Protective Council v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, stating, This contention is untenable. Rule 82(a) does not require that attorneys' fees be calculated with reference to the disposition of individual issues. Rather, it expressly provides that a reasonable award of fees shall be made, at the trial court's discretion, to the prevailing party. The clear meaning of that provision is that the party who prevails on the principal dispositive issue is entitled to reasonable costs calculated according to the trial court's discretion. [19] We see no reason to depart from that holding here.
Belluomini also challenges $1,560 in fees for Fred Meyer's counsel's time spent interviewing and consulting with expert witnesses; he contends that Fred Meyer never called these witnesses at trial and informed Belluomini well before trial that it did not intend to call them. Fred Meyer responds that it had to consult with these witnesses to prepare to rebut the expert testimony that Belluomini initially stated he would present at trial but then did not. Fred Meyer also claims that it needed expert testimony to rebut testimony as to damages claims that Belluomini presented at trial. The record backs up Fred Meyer's argument that these attorney's fees were incurred for a legitimate purpose, and Belluomini does not establish that the amount of disputed fees was unreasonable.
Belluomini opposes compensation for a second attorney representing Fred Meyer, whose fees totaled $12,818, arguing that the case was not so complex that it required more than one attorney to be present at trial. Fred Meyer responds that a second attorney was necessary; it also notes that Belluomini's counsel employed two paralegals and other assistants. We see no reason, and Belluomini offers none, to overrule the discretion of the trial court here. Belluomini has failed to show that the trial court's findings are manifestly unreasonable or otherwise oppressive. [20] It is ... for the trial judge to determine whether too much time was spent by attorneys for the prevailing party or whether too many attorneys were employed. [21] Given that Belluomini makes no substantive argument about the fairness of this award, we uphold the judgment of the trial judge, who was able to gauge firsthand in this case whether a second attorney was necessary.
Belluomini contests $1,183 of the fee award, alleging that it was based on Fred Meyer's preparation at the appellate, rather than trial court, level. But before the trial court entered its award of fees, Fred Meyer withdrew its request for the fees relating to this appeal. Thus, the issue is moot. [22]
Belluomini objects that the trial court awarded Fred Meyer more than thirty percent of its fees without explaining its departure, in violation of Rule 82(b). But in fact the trial court's calculation does equal thirty percent, save a small discrepancy attributable to a clerical error. [23]
Belluomini disputes the trial court's award of costs, stating that Fred Meyer did not serve on him a cost bill and notice of hearing, as required by former Civil Rule 79(a). He asserts that the court should have construed Fred Meyer's failure as a waiver of its right to recover costs. But our review of the record shows that the confusion over costs resulted from an amendment to Rule 79 that took effect at the time costs were at issue in this case. Belluomini does not contend that the failure to file a notice prejudiced him in any way, either by denying him a timely hearing or diminishing his opportunity to object to the costs filed. To find a waiver under these circumstances would amount to senseless formalism of the kind that we have abjured in other cases involving cost awards. [24] Accordingly, we find no error in the cost award.