Opinion ID: 1436365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cobra Car Alarm

Text: The probate master's report erroneously states that Blair testified that Monge sold the Cobra car alarm system when he sold his Chevy Blazer in which the alarm was installed. As Blair herself pointed out to the superior court in her Objection to Master's Report, Blair did not testify that the Cobra car alarm was sold with Monge's truck, but rather that Monge asked Blair to pick out a car alarm, purchased it and installed it in her truck in a manner which she perceived to indicate that the car alarm was a gift. She testified that he had sold his car alarm with his truck, but that was not the disputed Cobra car alarm system. Because the probate master's finding regarding the Cobra car alarm is clearly erroneous, we remand to the superior court for a determination of ownership of the Cobra car alarm which Monge purchased and installed in Blair's truck.
Bowman argues that the superior court erred in issuing its order awarding attorney's fees to Blair before ten days had elapsed after Blair filed her motion for attorney's fees. Bowman asserts that had she been given the opportunity to respond to the motion, she would have argued that (1) attorney's fees should have been denied in their entirety because Blair was not the prevailing party under Civil Rule 82, and (2) in the alternative, a smaller award should have been granted. Pursuant to Civil Rules 82(c) and 77(c), parties opposing a motion for an award of attorney's fees must file such opposition within ten days after service of the motion. It is error for the court to rule on a motion for award of attorney's fees before the opposing party is given an opportunity to respond. McGill v. Wahl, 839 P.2d 393, 399 (Alaska 1992). The probate master erred in making his recommendation and the superior court erred in issuing its order before ten days had elapsed. Whether that error prejudiced Bowman or was harmless depends on whether, as a matter of law, Bowman could not have prevailed on the issue of attorney's fees. Bowman argues that Blair was not the prevailing party in this matter. The prevailing party is the party who is successful with regard to the main issues in the action, even if the other party receives some affirmative recovery. Alaska Placer Co. v. Lee, 553 P.2d 54, 63 (Alaska 1976); Cooper v. Carlson, 511 P.2d 1305, 1308 (Alaska 1973). Clearly, Blair was the prevailing party here as she retained ownership of the majority of the disputed items. That result is not altered by the probate master's direction that Blair return certain disputed items to Bowman in the event Blair discovered them in her possession at a later date. The court necessarily found that Blair no longer possessed those items. As a matter of law, Bowman could not be considered the prevailing party. Bowman also argues that the award was an abuse of discretion because the probate master considered Blair's pre-litigation attorney's fees and relied on the fact that the dispute required extensive hearing time and accumulation of documents. In cases where the prevailing party recovers no money judgment, Alaska Civil Rule 82 provides for award of attorney's fees based on a percentage of the party's actual attorney's fees which are necessarily incurred. Alaska R.Civ.P. 82(b)(2). Bowman incorrectly assumes that the trial court, in awarding partial fees, cannot consider fees incurred before formal litigation begins. All attorney's fees incurred in connection with litigation are not necessarily incurred after formal commencement of the litigation. It is within the trial court's discretion to consider a party's pre-litigation fees in determining the award. Blair's attorney submitted an affidavit stating that all of his listed hours were spent in defending [Crystal] against the claim of Isabel Bowman... . Bowman offered no evidence otherwise and has not demonstrated that she could have offered contrary evidence if the court had not ruled prematurely. Thus, as a matter of law, Bowman could not have prevailed on this argument. Nonetheless, Bowman may have been prejudiced by the probate master's and superior court's premature actions. In recommending that the court award Blair attorney's fees of $2,950, fifty percent of the fees actually incurred, the probate master cited the extensive hearing time and accumulation of documents. Bowman argues that Blair was responsible for those factors. The superior court should have had an opportunity to consider that argument. [10] Thus, we cannot say that as a matter of law, Bowman was not prejudiced by the superior court's premature order awarding Blair $2,950 in attorney's fees. [11]
We AFFIRM the superior court's findings regarding all of the disputed items except for findings regarding the Cobra car alarm, which we REVERSE and REMAND for further findings consistent with our discussion above. We REMAND the issue of attorney's fees so that Bowman can be given the opportunity to oppose Blair's motion.