Opinion ID: 1643814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the chancellor erred in awarding attorney fees to Cooke.

Text: ¶ 19. The chancellor awarded attorney fees to Cooke on the basis that White failed to act in good faith after the mistake was discovered. The chancellor found that by rejecting the additional plats and by filing this action for specific performance, which was denied, White caused damage to Cooke, et al[.] in the nature of attorney fees. ¶ 20. We find that White did not act in bad faith and that the chancellor abused his discretion in awarding Cooke attorney fees. In rejecting the additional surveys and filing for specific performance, White merely sought to enforce what he believed he had contracted forthe property without the easement. Had a valid contract been found, White likely would have been entitled to specific performance subject to the easement, with the right to recover damages for breach of contract. See Whitman v. Larson, 172 A.D.2d 968, 970, 568 N.Y.S.2d 485 (N.Y.App.Div.1991) (citing Tanners Realty Corp. v. Ruggerio, 111 A.D.2d 974, 975, 490 N.Y.S.2d 73, 74 (N.Y.App.Div.1985)).