Opinion ID: 2673165
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: “We apply our independent judgment in reviewing conclusions of law,”10 which includes the superior court’s decision whether to apply the Civil Rules or Appellate Rule 508 to awards of fees and costs.11 We review “a superior court’s 9 The Owners have not appealed the Department’s prevailing party status or its right to attorney’s fees. Two of the Owners’ arguments nevertheless implicate the Department: that Appellate Rule 508 governed the awards of fees and costs and should be applied on remand, and that none of the prevailing parties’ fees should have been enhanced under Rule 82(b)(3). The Department has not taken a position on this appeal. 10 R & Y, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 34 P.3d 289, 292 (Alaska 2001). 11 Wagner v. Wagner, 183 P.3d 1265, 1267 (Alaska 2008) (citing Strong Enters., Inc. v. Seaward, 980 P.2d 456, 458 (Alaska 1999)) (considering de novo whether trial court should have applied Rule 82(b)(1) or Rule 82(b)(2) in calculating the fee award). -8- 6906 determination of prevailing party status and attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion”12 and “will only reverse if the award is ‘arbitrary, capricious, manifestly unreasonable, or stemmed from improper motive.’ ”13 If the superior court varies an award under Rule 82(b)(3) it must explain its reasons, and “[l]egal questions involved in exceptions to an award of attorney’s fees are reviewed de novo, while exceptions that rely on factual findings are reviewed for clear error.”14