Opinion ID: 2509547
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reasonableness of Attorney's Fees Award

Text: Dawson argued below that AS 34.03.350 entitled her to an award of full, reasonable attorney's fees from the tenants. The tenants responded that the statute should not be interpreted to call for full, reasonable fees. The superior court held that AS 34.03.350 provides for an award of full, reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party in an action under the Alaska Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (AURLTA), but awarded Dawson fees of $750 although her attorney had asserted that Dawson had incurred fees exceeding $15,000. Dawson argues on appeal that it was error to fail to award her full, reasonable fees. Garrison and Temanson argue that AS 34.03.350 does not require an award of full, reasonable fees. They did not cross-appeal this legal issue, but they permissibly raise it as an alternative basis for affirming the superior court's fees award. [10] We therefore first consider the standard that applies to Dawson's attorney's fees award. Alaska Statute 34.03.350 provides: Attorney fees shall be allowed to the prevailing party in any proceeding arising out of this chapter, or a rental agreement. Although we have not previously construed AS 34.03.350, we have interpreted other provisions calling for an award of reasonable fees to mean an award of full reasonable fees. [11] Had the legislature intended that a prevailing party in a landlord-tenant dispute receive only partial fees, there would have been no reason for the statute to address the topic of awarding fees, because Civil Rule 82 would have been an adequate basis for routine recovery of partial fees by prevailing parties. We therefore read AS 34.03.350 as providing for an award of full, reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party. The superior court did not err in so holding. We next consider whether, as Dawson contends, it was an abuse of discretion to award Dawson fees of $750. It is not clear how the superior court calculated the $750 award. It apparently reasoned in part that fees Dawson incurred while litigating possession during the first case were not recoverable from the tenants in the second case, because Dawson was not, or would not have been, the prevailing party. We express no opinion about whether she would have been the prevailing party if her second case had not mooted the first. Dawson's procedural difficulties in the first case and her vigorous efforts to defend those steps apparently also contributed to the court's decision to base the fee award exclusively on services performed during the second case. Under the circumstances, we think that was a permissible choice. After the failure of the first proceeding, Dawson chose to attempt an Appellate Rule 204 direct appeal of the interlocutory decision even though the more direct and immediate route to eviction would have been to serve a new notice and initiate a new proceeding. [12] Indeed, that is what Dawson ultimately did when she re-served the tenants in November 2001 and filed a new complaint in January 2002. But in the meantime, she continued to litigate the first case. She asked for expedited appellate review of the FED ruling, moved for consideration of newly discovered evidence under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b) relating to notice issues, gathered and submitted affidavits addressing the notice issues, and briefed the notice issues for the reviewing court. The appeal and the associated motion practice contributed to circuitous and inefficient litigation of the eviction dispute. Dawson thus proceeded on duplicative paths by vigorously attacking the November order at the same time she was initiating a new eviction case. When a party files duplicative cases, one of which renders the other moot, we cannot say that it is an abuse of discretion to deny attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting the mooted case. Having reviewed the time sheets detailing the services performed by Dawson's attorney, we conclude that the superior court did not err in concluding that Dawson excessively litigated what should have been a routine forced eviction. Nonetheless, the rationale for the $750 award is not obvious, even if the award was permissibly based on fees incurred only in the second case. After the tenants were evicted and she was awarded damages, Dawson requested $15,417 in attorney's fees. The supporting affidavit of her attorney, Z. Kent Sullivan, asserted that fees were billed at the hourly rate of $150 and that Dawson's attorneys had reasonably expended in excess of 102 hours in review, document preparation, hearing attendance and trial with regard to the present action. The affidavit attached billing statements specifying the services performed and the dates of service. The statements reflect numerous pre-January 7 entries that pertain only to the first case and the associated appeal and motion practice. The superior court found that Sullivan's hourly rate of $150 was reasonable, but that the hours expended were not reasonable because remarkable amounts of time were spent on matters that were not complex. The court also noted the lack of complex fact or law issues, the lack of significant pre-trial discovery or motion practice, and the brief length of trial(s). We cannot say that a substantial reduction was inappropriate. Nor are we convinced that the court's findings that the issues were not complex and that the services were excessive were clearly erroneous. But several circumstances nonetheless convince us that the $750 award was inadequate. At the $150 hourly rate approved by the superior court, the award compensated Dawson for only five hours of work by her lawyers. But the January 2002 possession trial and the May 2002 damages trial lasted a total of about 4.5 hours, and additional post-January 7 hearings took about another half an hour of actual court time. It appears from the billing statements that Dawson's attorney spent significantly more than five hours just preparing for and attending the two trials. [13] Because the trials and hearings themselves required nearly five hours of actual court time, the award failed to compensate Dawson for any necessary preparation before these appearances. Further, Sullivan's statements describe about thirty-seven billed hours of attorney time for services between January 7, 2002 (when Sullivan drafted and filed the second complaint) and May 24, 2002 (when the damages trial took place). At $150 per hour, the billings reflect about $5,550 attributable to the second case. The $750 award is less than fifteen percent of $5,550. In prosecuting the second case, Sullivan also had to draft and file a number of documents (including the complaint and proposed orders). The tenants were represented by very able attorneys who vigorously advocated the tenants' position even though the ultimate outcome on the issue of possession, assuming the alleged service and procedural deficiencies were cured, was never in realistic doubt. They raised numerous affirmative defenses. They asserted counterclaims for damages. It was not until shortly before the May 24, 2002 damages trial that they dismissed their counterclaims. Given the need to draft the complaint and the other documents, litigate significant legal issues raised by the tenants, prepare to respond to the counterclaims, prepare for and attend the possession and damages trials, and communicate with court and opposing counsel, the findings do not adequately support the award. They do not demonstrate how, under these circumstances, a reasonable attorney could have successfully litigated the disputed possession and damages issues in the second case without billing more than five hours of attorney time. It is not evident from the findings how $750 could, under the circumstances of this case, be considered a full and reasonable amount.