Opinion ID: 1292234
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Award of attorney's fees and costs in the direct civil suit

Text: Balough argues that this award should be vacated for four reasons: (1) FNSB failed to include any notice of a cost bill hearing as required by Civil Rule 79(a) when it submitted its cost bill; (2) costs in this aspect of the case are governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Thus, since Balough's claims were not frivolous or unreasonable, FNSB is not entitled to an award of costs; (3) FNSB did not request attorney's fees under Section 1988 but has relied solely on Civil Rule 82 to support its request; and (4) even if the Civil Rules did apply, only a small portion of the costs taxed by the Clerk would be recoverable. FNSB argues that while attorney's fees for Balough's Section 1983 claims are governed by Section 1988, Balough asserted state-law claims in her direct civil suit. Thus, FNSB was entitled to partial attorney's fees pursuant to Civil Rule 82. Furthermore, FNSB argues, it submitted an itemization to the lower court and the court awarded it fifty percent of attorney's fees, because the court concluded that fifty percent of FNSB's time had been spent on non-Section 1983 issues. Balough is correct in her argument that any attorney's fees for federal claims must be awarded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. [101] Balough is also correct that fees will only be granted if plaintiff's claims are found to be unreasonable, frivolous, meritless, or vexatious. [102] In this case, FNSB did not seek, nor was it granted, attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. In fact, the superior court's award of attorney's fees to FNSB in the direct civil suit specifically stated that the award was based only on non-1983 claims, which the court estimates at 50% of the time and effort spent. In Lyman v. State, this court reversed an award of attorney's fees in a case that involved both Section 1983 and non-Section 1983 claims because [t]he record [did not] include enough information to determine whether the costs and attorney's fees derive from defending the state law claim as distinguished from the federal law claims. [103] In the instant case, FNSB submitted to the superior court an eight-page itemization of attorney time spent on the direct civil suit. The amount of fees awarded to FNSB in Balough's direct civil suit, $2,500, equals one-half of twenty percent of FNSB's actual attorney's fees. We conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in awarding FNSB attorney's fees, pursuant to Civil Rule 82, limited to defending Balough's non-Section 1983 claims. For the same reasons we conclude that the superior court's award of FNSB's costs incurred in defending the non-Section 1983 claims was also not an abuse of discretion. The court specifically stated that [t]he costs [were] apportioned to eliminate § 1983 costs. Since this case was not originally filed as an [administrative] appeal, the transcripts are a recoverable cost. The superior court based its award of costs on an itemized list submitted by FNSB. The court rejected many of FNSB's requested costs. Lastly, FNSB did in fact file a notice of cost bill hearing; it simply did so after its motion to accept a late filing of cost bill was granted. We conclude that there was no error in the superior court's decision in the direct civil action. Thus we affirm the award of attorney's fees and costs in that proceeding.
We VACATE the judgment of the superior court which affirmed the decision of the BOA, and direct that it REMAND the case to the BOA to determine whether Balough's property can be brought into compliance with FNSBCO 8.16.030. If Balough's property can be brought into compliance with the ordinance, and Balough does so, then Balough must be afforded her rights under FNSBCO 18.56.020, the grandfather rights ordinance. On the other hand, if Balough's property cannot be brought into compliance with FNSBCO 8.16.030, or if it can be and Balough declines to do so, then Balough either has no rights under the grandfather ordinance or has chosen to waive any rights she may have had, as the case may be. The superior court shall then enter judgment granting Balough rights under FNSBCO 18.56.020, or affirm the decision of the BOA denying Balough's claimed rights. Attorney's fees and costs shall be entered in accordance with the ultimate decision of the superior court following the BOA proceedings. We AFFIRM the judgment of the superior court dismissing all of Balough's remaining claims, and awarding FNSB attorney's fees and costs, in the direct civil action.