Opinion ID: 1381094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Did the superior court err in denying Gould's motion for costs and attorney's fees?

Text: The superior court entered judgment against Uchitel Co., Visions, and Robert Uchitel but it did not render any judgment as to R.J. Gould. In its findings of fact the superior court concluded that Gould executed the lease agreement as the authorized agent of Visions, Uchitel Co., and Robert Uchitel. Gould appeals the superior court's denial of his motion for costs and attorney's fees. The decision to award costs and attorney's fees, under Civil Rules 54 and 82, is within the discretion of the court and is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. [32] In Cooper v. Carlson, 511 P.2d 1305 (Alaska 1973) the superior court rendered judgment generally in favor of the plaintiff but refused to award costs and attorney's fees. On appeal we held that since plaintiff had prevailed on all liability issues he was a prevailing party, even though he had not recovered any damages. Id. at 1308-09. It was recognized, however, that in certain situations the denial of attorney's fees to a prevailing party might be a proper exercise of discretion. Since the superior court in Carlson had not explained its refusal the case was remanded for reconsideration. Id. at 1309-11. In the instant case the superior court did not offer an explanation for its decision to deny costs or attorney's fees to Gould. As in Carlson we think the most appropriate disposition is to remand the matter to the superior court, to determine whether attorney's fees should be allowed or denied in its discretion, in which event the reasons for exercising such discretion should be set forth. Id. at 1311. [33] AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.