Opinion ID: 1191526
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: CROSS-APPEAL NEW v. EARL E. COOK REAL ESTATE

Text: The News' complaint contained claims for relief against Earl E. Cook Real Estate which allege that Cook had, as agent for Teas, sold the land to the News under the misrepresentation that it had public access suitable for subdivision. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Cook on these claims on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired before the action was brought. The News appeal this ruling. In addition, the court awarded costs and attorney's fees against the News in favor of Cook and entered an order which contained a certificate pursuant to Alaska Civil Rule 54(b), making this judgment final and appealable. After some procedural maneuvering, Cook collected this judgment and moved for costs and attorney's fees incurred in aid of execution. Cook claimed full attorney's fees expended in this effort, $3,615. This amount was awarded. The News challenge this award on the grounds that (1) the documentation underlying the motion indicates that some of Cook's attorney's time was spent in unsuccessfully attempting to obtain dismissal of the News' appeal and in settlement negotiations and (2) that full fees should not be awarded in any event. With respect to the grant of summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, we affirm. The applicable statute of limitations is AS 09.10.070, which prescribes a bar of two years from the time the cause of action accrues. A cause of action accrues when a party knows or should know that he has a claim. Sharrow v. Archer, 658 P.2d 1331, 1335 (Alaska 1983). The News filed their claim on November 8, 1982. The News knew or should have known that they had a claim against Cook more than two years before this. On October 9, 1978, the News delivered a letter to Cook which stated in part: I am planning on building on my property and would like to have the question of public access on Tribulation Trail settled. Ralph New was asked at his deposition why he prepared the letter. He replied that he realized that he had a problem of access, that he discussed it with Mike Harter, an associate broker for Cook, who suggested that New obtain counsel to resolve his problem. New did consult with counsel who, on August 8, 1979, wrote a letter to Mssrs. Everhart and Demoski. The letter refers to certain events occurring last summer by which Tribulation Trail was closed by yourselves so as to deny Mr. New access to his property. New also stated in an affidavit that in October of 1979 I went over to the Borough platting office and the platting officer told me that I could proceed no further with my platting until there was recorded reservation or dedication of public access... . Based on these facts, reasonable minds could not differ but that the News either knew or should have known of their claim for misrepresentation by October of 1979. Their claim filed on November 8, 1982 was thus barred by the two-year limitations period. The News' points concerning the award to Cook of attorney's fees incurred in aid of execution are correct. Some of the time claimed by Cook's counsel relates to Cook's unsuccessful motion to dismiss this appeal and to settlement negotiations. Cook attempts to justify the award by noting that two days after the award at a sanctions hearing against one of News' attorneys, the court found that grounds for sanctions existed but did not impose a fine against News' counsel. The court stated, I think that the award of costs and attorney's fees which the court has done adequately takes care of any matter of sanctions. Cook argues from this that the trial court intended the award to be a sanction against the News' counsel and that it can be upheld on this basis. One difficulty with this position is that if sanctions were warranted, they were assessable personally against counsel under the circumstances of this case, whereas the award of costs and attorney's fees were assessed against the News. Moreover, it is not clear on this record what the amount of attorney's fees awarded to Cook properly should be. Thus, we cannot determine whether the difference between that amount and the amount awarded is too harsh a sanction. We thus reject Cook's position on this issue. The News also argue that full attorney's fees incurred in aid of execution may not be awarded. On this point too, the News are correct. The purpose of Civil Rule 82 is to compensate a prevailing party partially, not fully, for attorney's fees incurred in litigation. Stepanov v. Gavrilovich, 594 P.2d 30, 37 (Alaska 1979). An award of full attorney's fees is manifestly unreasonable in the absence of bad faith or vexatious conduct by the losing party. State v. University of Alaska, 624 P.2d 807, 817 (Alaska 1981). No such finding was made in this case. Thus, on both grounds presented, the award of $3,615 in additional attorney's fees must be reversed and appropriate fees should be assessed on remand. The court is also authorized to reconsider the question of sanctions against counsel for the News. For the above reasons we issue the following order:

4. The award of attorney's fees of $4,500 in favor of the News is VACATED so that the court may consider whether the News are the prevailing parties in their claims against the Demoskis; 5. The order of the court refusing to award costs in favor of the News is VACATED and the court is instructed to award costs to the News on their claim against the Demoskis unless the court concludes that the News were not the prevailing parties; 6. The court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Cook is AFFIRMED; 7. The court's award of additional attorney's fees to Cook is REVERSED; and we instruct the court to enter an award of attorney's fees which excludes fees for work not in aid of execution and which represents a partial rather than a full fee, unless the court finds bad faith or vexatious conduct; 8. The court may reconsider the question of imposing sanctions on News' counsel.