Opinion ID: 901890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: issues

Text: [¶ 37.] Both Wal-Mart Trust and Par Golf moved for attorney fees under SDCL 44-9-42. That statute provides that in mechanic's lien cases, a circuit court shall have authority in its discretion to allow such attorney's fees ... and other expenses as to it may seem warranted and necessary according to the circumstances of each case[.] SDCL 44-9-42. The circuit court denied Wal-Mart Trust's application and granted $12,500 of Par Golf's $28,114.79 attorney fees. [¶ 38.] Defendants argue that the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding Par Golf this amount, when nearly two-thirds, approximately seventy percent ($44,379.78), of Par Golf's claimed lien was invalid. Defendants argue that Par Golf's award essentially included fees relating to the unjust enrichment claim. [¶ 39.] In its findings of fact, the court noted that Defendants did not object to the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged, nor did they argue that the amount of work was unnecessary in the prosecution of the mechanic's lien claim and the defense of Bodell's setoff claim. Further, the circuit court's findings of fact and conclusions of law reflect that, in awarding Par Golf less than half of what they requested in attorney fees: the sum of $12,500 in attorney fees was reasonable and necessary to prosecute Par Golf's claim on the lien foreclosure [.] Therefore, we see no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's analysis. Nevertheless, in light of our reversal of most of the remaining claimed mechanic's lien, we remand this issue for reconsideration. [¶ 40.] Defendants also contend that the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied Wal-Mart Trust's motion for attorney fees in defense of the lien foreclosure. Defendants note that Wal-Mart Trust had secured a bond from Travelers that released the lien from Wal-Mart Trust's property and fully secured Par Golf's claim, yet Par Golf refused to dismiss Wal-Mart Trust from the case. Defendants argue that under these circumstances, Wal-Mart Trust should not have been forced to bear the cost of defending Par Golf's mechanic's lien claims. In light of our reversal of the mechanic's lien claim in substantial part, we also remand this issue for reconsideration.