Opinion ID: 1198813
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Superior Court's Award of Attorney's Fees Is Vacated.

Text: Leisnoi argues that the superior court should have awarded attorney's fees to Leisnoi, instead of Stratman, because, on the morning of trial, Stratman stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of an adverse possession counterclaim against Leisnoi. Leisnoi argues that the value of the lands that had their title called into question by this counterclaim far exceeds the value of the lease to graze those lands, and that Leisnoi therefore prevailed on the main issue in the litigation, which was the claim that had the highest monetary value at stake. This court will not disturb a Civil Rule 82 fee award unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion, which is established only where it appears that the court's determination is manifestly unreasonable. Adoption of V.M.C., 528 P.2d 788, 795 (Alaska 1974). Like the award itself, the actual determination of who the `prevailing' party is is also within [the broad] discretion of the trial court. Id. Prior to this court's reversal, the superior court's determination of prevailing party status was not a clear abuse of discretion. Both Leisnoi and Stratman raised what appear to have been overly ambitious claims against each other, only to withdraw these claims on the morning of trial. Leisnoi abandoned its claim to Stratman's homestead, and Stratman agreed to the dismissal of his adverse possession counterclaim with prejudice. Having eliminated these less tenable claims, the parties were able to concentrate on the FED claim, the principal issue before the court. Because we have remanded this issue to the superior court, the award of attorney's fees may or may not ultimately be appropriate. We therefore vacate the superior court's award of attorney's fees. The award of attorney's fees will ultimately depend upon which party prevails on remand on the right-to-possession issue.