Opinion ID: 1255717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding Means attorney's fees.

Text: NRS 18.010(2)(b) provides: In addition to the cases where an allowance is authorized by specific statute, the court may make an allowance of attorney's fees to a prevailing party: ... . (b) Without regard to the recovery sought, when the court finds that the claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint or defense of the opposing party was brought without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party. We have held that an award of attorney's fees under NRS 18.010(2)(b) is discretionary with the district court. Foley v. Morse & Mowbray, 109 Nev. 116, 124, 848 P.2d 519, 524 (1993). To support such an award, however, there must be evidence in the record supporting the proposition that the complaint was brought without reasonable grounds or to harass the other party. Chowdhry v. NLVH, Inc., 109 Nev. 478, 486, 851 P.2d 459, 464 (1993). In Bergmann v. Boyce, 109 Nev. 670, 856 P.2d 560 (1993), this court, citing Fountain v. Mojo, 687 P.2d 496, 501 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984), recognized that a claim is groundless if the complaint contains allegations which are not supported by any credible evidence at trial. See also Allianz Ins. Co. v. Gagnon, 109 Nev. 990, 996, 860 P.2d 721, 724 (1993) (quoting Western United Realty, Inc. v. Isaacs, 679 P.2d 1063, 1065-69 (Colo. 1984) (attorney's fees allowable if action is frivolous or groundless, i.e., cannot be supported by any credible evidence at trial)). In Bergmann, this court stated: In assessing a motion for attorney's fees under NRS 18.010(2)(b), the trial court must determine whether the plaintiff had reasonable grounds for its claims. Such an analysis depends upon the actual circumstances of the case... . Bergmann, 109 Nev. at 675, 856 P.2d at 563. Recently, in Duff v. Foster, 110 Nev. 1306, 885 P.2d 589 (1994), this court approvingly cited the case of State, Dep't of Health and Rehabilitation Services v. Thompson, 552 So.2d 318 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989), for the following proposition: `If an action is not frivolous when it is initiated, then the fact that it later becomes frivolous will not support an award of fees.' Duff, 110 Nev. at 1309, 885 P.2d at 591 (quoting Thompson, 552 So.2d at 319). The Semenzas argued that Means should not receive his full attorney's fees because all of their claims against Means, except negligence, were voluntarily dismissed prior to trial. They note, therefore, that these dismissed claims had not proceeded to judgment. Works v. Kuhn, 103 Nev. 65, 68, 732 P.2d 1373, 1376 (1987) (quoting Sun Realty v. District Court, 91 Nev. 774, 775 n. 2, 542 P.2d 1072, 1073 (1975) ([A] party to an action cannot be considered a prevailing party within the contemplation of NRS 18.010, where the action has not `proceeded to judgment')). We disagree. The district court awarded Means attorney's fees because the claim against him was brought without reasonable grounds. (Emphasis added.) Arguably, by voluntarily dismissing four of the five claims, the Semenzas merely refined their action against Means. Thus, the district court properly considered an award of full attorney's fees for the remaining, but unsuccessful, negligence claim which proceeded to judgment. Id. However, we also conclude that the district court erred in finding that the Semenzas brought their negligence claim against Means without reasonable grounds. Although the Semenzas did not present evidence at trial in support of their original theory involving an alleged decision by Means to forego the expense of an engineered drainage system, an analysis of the actual circumstances of the case  namely, the discovery that this theory was inaccurate  reveals that the naming of Means was not unreasonable or meant to harass Means. In their answers to interrogatories, dated October 15, 1993, and attested to October 26, 1993 (several months after the filing of their complaint), the Semenzas stated their belief that Means personally decided to forego a drainage system in their home because of cost. Whether or not this was a misunderstanding, this belief appears to provide a reasonable ground for bringing a claim against Means individually, especially where the drainage in fact was deficient. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that the Semenzas intentionally made false allegations or disregarded the truth prior to naming Means, which is another factor in considering whether to award attorney's fees under NRS 18.020(2)(b). See Allianz Ins. Co., 109 Nev. at 996, 860 P.2d at 724. Consequently, we vacate the award of attorney's fees to Means.