Opinion ID: 1213853
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Attorney's fees in favor of the City

Text: After Lakeview sued the Borough, the trial court permitted the Borough to file a third-party complaint against the City notwithstanding Lakeview's argument that any claims Lakeview had against the City expired long ago. The trial court later granted summary judgment to the City, ruling that the Borough's third-party claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The court entered final judgment for the City pursuant to Civil Rule 54(b). [33] The Borough argues that the trial court erred in ordering the Borough to pay part of the City's attorney's fees incurred in defending against the Borough's third-party complaint. [34] It states that [w]hen a third-party defendant successfully defends against a derivative claim, the trial court has the discretion to award attorneys fees in favor of that defendant directly against the principal plaintiff. While no party disagrees with this statement, the City and Lakeview maintain that the trial court was not required to award the City fees against Lakeview, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees to the City against the Borough. We agree. Even though the Borough's perceived need to file a third-party complaint was fueled by Lakeview's statements regarding damages and by the trial court's rulings regarding the statute of limitations, the City prevailed on the Borough's third-party claims. It was appropriate to award the City fees against the Borough, the party which began the third-party action. Because the primary dispute in this case was between Lakeview and the Borough, not Lakeview and the City, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the City's award against the Borough and not against Lakeview. Cases such as State ex rel. Palmer Supply Co. v. Walsh, 575 P.2d 1213 (Alaska 1978), relied upon by the Borough, are inapplicable. [35] We find no error.