Opinion ID: 886099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the District Court err when it awarded attorney fees to Respondents Patricia Raunig and Helen Ricci?

Text: ¶ 31 A district court's grant or denial of a motion for attorney fees is a discretionary ruling which we review to determine whether the court abused its discretion. Braach v. Graybeal, 1999 MT 234, ¶ 6, 296 Mont. 138, ¶ 6, 988 P.2d 761, ¶ 6. ¶ 32 Although somewhat difficult to ascertain, it appears that Junior raises two issues with regard to the award of attorney fees. First, Junior argues that the trial court had no basis to award attorney fees ... and this Court should reverse that order in its entirety. Second, assuming that we affirm the award of attorney fees, Junior contends that the District Court erroneously failed to hold a hearing to determine the appropriate extent of the award. Therefore, we will address each argument in turn. ¶ 33 In response to Respondents' motion for attorney fees and costs and Junior's respective opposition, the District Court, on November 28, 2000, found the following: 22. Attorney fees and costs were incurred by the sisters in part due to [Junior's] deception, contradiction, and fraud. [Junior's] deceptive and fraudulent behavior, as well as his contradictory statements are identified throughout the text of these Findings and Conclusions. As a result of [Junior's] deception, contradiction and fraudulent behavior considerable time, effort and expense have been spent in an attempt to arrive at a reasonable understanding of the condition of the guardianship estate and of the true ownership of the Sunnyside property. 23. The record reflects that [Junior] and his counsel have taken every opportunity to obstruct and avoid a resolution of the issues in this case by filing at best questionable motions to dismiss and for sanctions as well as taking positions that are not supported by law or facts and failing to mediate the issues in good faith. By doing so, [Junior] and his counsel have needlessly protracted this litigation at considerable expense to the sisters. Based on the above findings, the District Court ordered Junior to pay eighty percent of Respondents' attorney fees and costs and Junior's attorney to pay the remaining twenty percent. ¶ 34 In In re Support of K.F. (1988), 232 Mont. 326, 331, 756 P.2d 460, 463, we reaffirmed the proposition that a district court has the equitable power to order attorney fees when justice so requires. Further, § 37-61-421, MCA, authorizes a district court to award attorney fees, costs, and expenses against [a]n attorney or party ... who ... multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.... See also In re Marriage of Rager (1994), 263 Mont. 361, 366, 868 P.2d 625, 628. As there is substantial evidence in the record to support the above findings, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs to Respondents. Therefore, we must next determine whether the actual monetary award was reasonable. ¶ 35 In its November 28, 2000 ruling, the District Court ordered counsel for Respondents to submit his bill for attorney fees and costs to the Court with a supporting affidavit for review and approval by the Court. Consequently, on February 27, 2001, Respondents' counsel submitted the requested bill and corresponding affidavit. On March 20, 2001, the District Court approved Respondents' alleged fees and costs. In the months that followed, Junior's attorney remitted his twenty percent share of the fees and costs in full satisfaction of his obligation. ¶ 36 On appeal, Junior insinuates that the bill of fees and costs contained expenses for which he should not be held responsible. Junior argues that the District Court should have held a hearing following submission of the bill instead of simply rubber-stamp[ing] the affidavit of counsel for respondents.... In support of his position, Junior cites Lindey's, Inc. v. Goodover (1994), 264 Mont. 489, 872 P.2d 767, for the proposition that due process requires notice and a hearing before attorney fees may be awarded. ¶ 37 Junior's reliance on Lindey's is misplaced. In Lindey's, we held that a hearing is necessary to provide a party a sufficient opportunity to defend against the imposition of Rule 11, M.R.Civ.P., sanctions. Lindey's, 264 Mont. at 497, 872 P.2d at 772. Here the District Court did not rely on Rule 11, M.R.Civ.P., for its award of attorney fees and costs. Moreover, Junior was on notice that fees would be awarded, and had an opportunity to challenge the amount. ¶ 38 Junior filed a brief in opposition to Respondents' request for an award of fees. Thus, he was heard by the Court with respect to the propriety of a fee award. Subsequently, Respondents submitted a bill of expenses together with supporting affidavit. At this point, Junior had the opportunity to be heard with respect to the amount of the requested fees and expenses. However, in the three weeks following the submission of the affidavit and bill of expenses, Junior filed no objections to the bill of expenses. The District Court was therefore justified in entering an order approving the bill of expenses as submitted. ¶ 39 Not only did Junior fail to object to the bill of expenses, his attorney appeared to acquiesce in the order when he remitted his twenty percent of the award in due course. Now, on appeal, Junior asks us to overturn the District Court's award. It is well settled that we will not address an issue on appeal that a party did not properly raise in the district court. Nason v. Leistiko, 1998 MT 217, ¶ 11, 290 Mont. 460, ¶ 11, 963 P.2d 1279, ¶ 11. As stated above, Junior did not raise an objection to the alleged fees and costs following Respondents' submission of the same. Instead Junior challenges the fees and costs for the first time on appeal. Therefore, we decline to address the reasonableness of the award. ¶ 40 Affirmed. KARLA M. GRAY, JAMES C. NELSON and JIM RICE, concur.