Opinion ID: 2298505
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ms Kenda's Request for Attorneys' Fees

Text: We review a trial court's decision to deny a request for attorneys' fees for abuse of discretion. Steadman v. Steadman, 514 A.2d 1196, 1200 (D.C. 1986). In a custody dispute, [a] trial court `is authorized to grant attorney's fees where the court finds that counsel was necessary to protect the interests of the [child].' Maybin v. Stewart, 885 A.2d 284, 288 (D.C. 2005) (quoting Prost v. Greene, 675 A.2d 471, 474 (D.C.1996) (internal quotations and citation omitted)). Thus, when counsel is required by the party in whose custody the court has deemed to have been in the child's best interests, attorney's fees may be granted to that party in defending such grant. Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). Section 312 of the UCCJEA, D.C.Code § 16-4603.12 (2001), authorizes the trial court to award the prevailing party ... necessary and reasonable expenses..., including costs ... [and] attorney's fees. ... Ms. Kenda initially requested an award of costs that the court deems proper and just, and she alleged that out of $300,000.00 of attorneys' fees charged to her, she had paid about $84,000.00. One of the law firms that had represented Ms. Kenda requested $193,000.00 in attorney's fees. The trial court determined that the fees sought by this firm were related to work performed after the parties reached an agreement to share custody of A.P.K. Further, the court found that the attorneys who contributed the most to A.P.K.'s best interest were the guardians ad litem, who ultimately recommended that the court award the parties joint-custody. The court also noted that the Indiana court's judgment awarded more than $49,000.00 in attorney's fees to Mr. Pleskovic which, at the time, had not been satisfied; and that Mr. Pleskovic was not nearly as financially well-off as Ms. Kenda apparently believed. Accordingly, the court determined that it would be unfair for Mr. Pleskovic to pay Ms. Kenda's legal fees. We conclude that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying Ms. Kenda's request. See Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354, 362 (D.C.1979). The trial court determined that A.P.K.'s best interests were served by the court appointed guardians ad litem, that both parties suffered financial losses in the dispute, and that forcing Mr. Pleskovic to pay Ms. Kenda's fees would be unfair. In short, we see no abuse of discretion and no reason to disturb this finding. See Fritz v. Grise, 797 A.2d 710, 715 (D.C.2002) (determining that there was no abuse of discretion relating to the trial court's decision not to award attorney's fees under a section of the UCCJA). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgments. So ordered.