Opinion ID: 2585097
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prevailing Party Status and the Court's Refusal To Award Sidney Enhanced Attorney's Fees

Text: Sidney next argues that the trial court erred in failing to award her the costs of the confirmation action in its August 10, 2005 final judgment. But the court's amended final judgment, entered pursuant to the parties' stipulation, did in fact award Sidney the costs of the confirmation proceedings in the amount of $503.38. However, because we vacate the court's order finding Sidney to be the prevailing party in this case, we vacate the court's award of the costs of the confirmation action to Sidney and remand for a new determination of prevailing party status as set forth below.
Allstate contends that even if the court correctly decided summary judgment in Sidney's favor, and Sidney was held to be entitled to add-ons on the full amount of the arbitration award, the superior court erred in its determination of prevailing party status. The superior court found Sidney to be the prevailing party and awarded Sidney attorney fees in both its original final judgment and in the subsequent amended final judgment. Because we reverse the superior court's order awarding Sidney all of her requested add-ons on the liability settlement, we vacate the court's determination that Sidney was the prevailing party and the award of attorney's fees in her favor. [65] On remand the superior court should determine who is the prevailing party in this action and award attorney's fees accordingly. [66]
Sidney's final argument is that the court erred in awarding her attorney's fees under the deficiency without trial schedule of Civil Rule 82(b)(1) rather than awarding her actual fees under Rule 82(b)(3). In her reply brief she alternatively contends that the court should have followed Rule 82(b)(2) and awarded her a certain percentage of her actual fees. She claims that full fees were proper here because of the intricacy of the legal issues, the length in time between the arbitration award and final judgment, the amount of time invested in the case, Allstate's erroneous briefing, and the utility of our decision in setting precedent for future calculation of UIM arbitration awards. But while Sidney requested full attorney's fees in her motion to the superior court, she did so in a one sentence statement: Plaintiff requests an award for her actual attorney's fees and costs. She provided no justification for varying the presumptive fee award, offered no authority in support of her argument, and pointed to no authority in support of her request. Not until filing her reply to Allstate's opposition to her motion for attorney's fees did she articulate a basis for departing from Rule 82(b)(1) or raise any arguments in support of her original, cursory statement on this issue. In light of her failure to sufficiently raise this issue, we conclude her argument on this point is waived. [67]