Opinion ID: 1767590
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Should the award of attorneys' fees pass through to Boling and Berra?

Text: Essex argues that Boling and Berra should be liable for the full amount of the intervenors' attorneys' fees assessed against Essex. The trial court assessed only $7,088.00 against Berra and $17,013.00 against Boling. Boling and Berra argue that they should not be liable for any amount of attorneys' fees, as the action was brought by the intervenors against Essex and not against the two concrete companies. Essex argues that Boling and Berra should be liable for the full amount of attorneys' fees, including the $219,227.00 assessed against Essex. Boling and Berra point this Court to the language in their respective contracts with Essex that provides that the developer shall be responsible for all attorneys' fees incurred to enforce the contract. This provision does not apply to the collection of attorneys' fees resulting from an action brought on behalf of the intervenors against Essex. The provisions in the Essex's contracts with Boling and Berra apply only to litigation costs and fees incurred as a result of a suit between Essex and Boling and Berra. As Boling and Berra observe, the general rule in Missouri is that attorneys' fees are only recoverable when a statute specifically authorizes recovery or when attorneys' fees are provided for by contract. Johnson v. Mercantile Trust Co. Nat. Ass'n, 510 S.W.2d 33, 40 (Mo. banc 1974). Essex argues that because it was not found to be negligent, it should not be liable under section 89.491 for attorneys' fees. Negligent or not, Essex was the named party in the intervenors' action. There is no statutory provision authorizing the passing through of attorneys' fees to the underlying negligent parties. As discussed above, Boling and Berra's negligence and their liability for the failures of the streets is an issue to be evaluated in the trial court. There is an exception to the general rule discussed above. `Where the natural and proximate result of a wrong or breach of duty is to involve the wronged party in collateral litigation, reasonable attorneys' fees necessarily and in good faith incurred in protecting himself from the injurious consequence thereof are proper items of damages.' Johnson v. Mercantile Trust Co. Nat. Ass'n, 510 S.W.2d at 40 (quoting State ex rel. Moore v. Morant, 266 S.W.2d 723, 727 (Mo.App.1954)). Essex may well have a claim that it should be reimbursed under this rule for the attorneys' fees assessed against it in the litigation with Boling and Berra. The application of this rule, however, necessitates preliminary findings that Boling and Berra breached an agreement and that the breach resulted in Essex's liability. As yet, there has been no such finding in the trial court. As the findings and conclusions now stand, there is no basis on which to assess attorneys' fees liability to Boling and Berra. This Court reverses the assessment of attorneys' fees to Boling and Berra and remands the case so that the trial court can determine whether attorneys' fees appropriately may be given to Essex, pending a finding of liability on the part of Boling and Berra.